27 ms·

> There's not much preventing me from re-assinging copyright to myself (in countries that allow it) and then suing the original creator. In what jurisdictions

> There's not much preventing me from re-assinging copyright to myself (in countries that allow it) and then suing the original creator. In what jurisdictions would that be interpreted as copyright reassignment? I can see how you might argue that "re-assign copyright to myself" is WTF you want to do, but the onus is on the creator to assign copyright to you. > There's nothing to stop me from taking your code, re-licensing it under say a proprietary license, then suing the original creator. Suing them for what? There's nothing to prevent you from suing pretty much anyone, for any reason, including any of the other licenses. Second of all, if you're saying there's nothing preventing your suit from being successful, I still don't understand on what grounds. It doesn't matter what licence you've relicensed under if the original author holds copyright. > There's nothing that stops me from taking your project's branding/symbol/graphics/name and claiming it as my own and then suing you. You could do this no matter what the license. What about the WTFPL would make your lawsuit any more successful than any other licence? > There's nothing that stops me from taking your work and then not providing attribution back to the original creator. This is fully within the intent of the WTFPL. > By default there is nothing that absolves the license holder from warranty nor implied fitness for use. You have a good point that this is something many people would want. Do you know in which jurisdictions this is actually needed? I wasn't able to find any sources for this. > Has it been challenged before in a legal sense? Has a lawyer reviewed it? Excellent points.

DannyBee 12y ago
Okay, lawyer time. Some of these concerns are overblown, some aren't. First, the license grant is clearly ambiguous. Most license grants are written in terms of exclusive rights of copyright (ie reproduction, derivative work creation, public performance). This one isn't. "Do whatever the fuck you want' is unclear as to exactly what rights you can exercise and can't, because "whatever you want" can be found to not literally be "whatever" (and in fact, when most people say "you can do whatever you want", they often mean "whatever you want within reason") Maybe a judge will agree with "it means all of them", maybe they won't. It depends on the situation. I wouldn't want to bet my life on it. Damages would likely be minimal in such a case, except in places with high statutory damages awards. You might get enjoined from using it. Second, As for reassigning copyright, probably not. In most jurisdictions, this requires a specific signed instrument. Third, you can't put it under a new license and sue the creator, they also have rights to it. Fourth, "You have a good point that this is something many people would want. Do you know in which jurisdictions this is actually needed? I wasn't able to find any sources for this." At the very least, in the US it's a very bad idea not to disclaim warranties. Particularly since people are making warranties on mailing lists as to fitness, etc, all the time. I can't stress enough how dangerous it is to not disclaim warranties in the US. > Has it been challenged before in a legal sense? Has a lawyer reviewed it? Excellent points." OSI declined to name it an open source license, considering it mostly duplicative of others. I specifically try to push people to avoid it, and the company i work for won't distribute software that uses it.
- nkurz 12y ago
  > I can't stress enough how dangerous it is to not disclaim warranties in the US. Can you offer some specific examples where an open source software project has suffered harm as a result? I generally trust your judgement, but would like to see the details. I also appreciate the lack of IAALBTDNCLA in your post, although it might seem at odds with the disclaimer of warranties you advise. Is this omission a considered decision?
  - DannyBee 12y ago
    "Can you offer some specific examples where an open source software project has suffered harm as a result? I generally trust your judgement, but would like to see the details." Not yet, but only because WTFPL is the only license i'm aware of that does not disclaim warranties, and it isn't all that popular. I can offer plenty of examples of regular old sales without them that have gone bad. I can also offer examples of cases where judgement went for the defendants because the warranties were disclaimed. As an aside, the WTFPL has a suggested warranty disclaimer in the FAQ, which is probably not effective in some places, which is even worse :(
    - nkurz 12y ago
      I don't know if cases that involve an actual sale of a good are parallel enough to draw conclusions. I'm particularly looking for case law regarding implied warranty in the absence of a sale. My suspicion is that the disclaimer is an odd side effect of the desire to create a transaction so as to have an enforceable contract. In the absence of a sale or contract, I'm not sure what warranty would be construed. While false claims might cause damage, it seems like these might be issues even in the presence of a disclaimer.
      - DannyBee 12y ago
        So, there is a definitely a contract, regardless of sale. This much is 100% certain (no court has otherwise sold). If the question is "can there be implied warranties on stuff given away for free", the answer is definitely "yes" In that sort of case, the only question is one of "damages", not of "validity of claim"

DannyBee 12y ago

Okay, lawyer time. Some of these concerns are overblown, some aren't. First, the license grant is clearly ambiguous. Most license grants are written in terms of exclusive rights of copyright (ie reproduction, derivative work creation, public performance). This one isn't. "Do whatever the fuck you want' is unclear as to exactly what rights you can exercise and can't, because "whatever you want" can be found to not literally be "whatever" (and in fact, when most people say "you can do whatever you want", they often mean "whatever you want within reason") Maybe a judge will agree with "it means all of them", maybe they won't. It depends on the situation. I wouldn't want to bet my life on it. Damages would likely be minimal in such a case, except in places with high statutory damages awards. You might get enjoined from using it. Second, As for reassigning copyright, probably not. In most jurisdictions, this requires a specific signed instrument. Third, you can't put it under a new license and sue the creator, they also have rights to it. Fourth, "You have a good point that this is something many people would want. Do you know in which jurisdictions this is actually needed? I wasn't able to find any sources for this." At the very least, in the US it's a very bad idea not to disclaim warranties. Particularly since people are making warranties on mailing lists as to fitness, etc, all the time. I can't stress enough how dangerous it is to not disclaim warranties in the US. > Has it been challenged before in a legal sense? Has a lawyer reviewed it? Excellent points." OSI declined to name it an open source license, considering it mostly duplicative of others. I specifically try to push people to avoid it, and the company i work for won't distribute software that uses it.

nkurz 12y ago
> I can't stress enough how dangerous it is to not disclaim warranties in the US. Can you offer some specific examples where an open source software project has suffered harm as a result? I generally trust your judgement, but would like to see the details. I also appreciate the lack of IAALBTDNCLA in your post, although it might seem at odds with the disclaimer of warranties you advise. Is this omission a considered decision?
- DannyBee 12y ago
  "Can you offer some specific examples where an open source software project has suffered harm as a result? I generally trust your judgement, but would like to see the details." Not yet, but only because WTFPL is the only license i'm aware of that does not disclaim warranties, and it isn't all that popular. I can offer plenty of examples of regular old sales without them that have gone bad. I can also offer examples of cases where judgement went for the defendants because the warranties were disclaimed. As an aside, the WTFPL has a suggested warranty disclaimer in the FAQ, which is probably not effective in some places, which is even worse :(
  - nkurz 12y ago
    I don't know if cases that involve an actual sale of a good are parallel enough to draw conclusions. I'm particularly looking for case law regarding implied warranty in the absence of a sale. My suspicion is that the disclaimer is an odd side effect of the desire to create a transaction so as to have an enforceable contract. In the absence of a sale or contract, I'm not sure what warranty would be construed. While false claims might cause damage, it seems like these might be issues even in the presence of a disclaimer.
    - DannyBee 12y ago
      So, there is a definitely a contract, regardless of sale. This much is 100% certain (no court has otherwise sold). If the question is "can there be implied warranties on stuff given away for free", the answer is definitely "yes" In that sort of case, the only question is one of "damages", not of "validity of claim"