2 ms·

That is strange that this is FSF approved to me... In the US at least, without the typical "AS IS" warning (as you would see in the MIT license which seems jus

by timf 17y ago

That is strange that this is FSF approved to me... In the US at least, without the typical "AS IS" warning (as you would see in the MIT license which seems just as good for the intended purpose of the WTFPL), this is creating an unintended liability? http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225 http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225

johnnybgoode 17y ago
From the WTFPL site: Why is there no “no warranty” clause? The WTFPL is an all-purpose license and does not cover only computer programs; it can be used for artwork, documentation and so on. As such, it only covers copying, distribution and modification. If you want to add a no warranty clause for a program, you may use the following wording in your source code: /* This program is free software. It comes without any warranty, to * the extent permitted by applicable law. You can redistribute it * and/or modify it under the terms of the Do What The Fuck You Want * To Public License, Version 2, as published by Sam Hocevar. See * http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/COPYING for more details. */
- timf 17y ago
  Thanks. I see that the pysh person states "with a no warranty close [sic]". Did not catch that.
jrockway 17y ago
> this is creating an unintended liability If you want to sell WTFPL-licensed software, you should probably relicense it under the MIT (or BSD, or GPL) license. Then you are safe. The original author that put some code on a web page is probably not going to be liable anyway.