[agwa]

> So, with the openness, you can't beat the WTFPL (http://www.wtfpl.net/).

Please, please, please, do not use the WTFPL, especially if you say you care about "openness" and "kosher rules." The WTFPL is so poorly written no one knows what it really means. Consequentially, legally-sensitive people/organizations may actually have a harder time using a WTFPL-licensed project than a GPL-licensed project.

If you want a public domain-style license, use CC0 (https://creativecommons.org/about/cc0) instead.

[tomchristie]

> Please, please, please, do not use the WTFPL

I think it's a valid, personal choice.

If someone wants to make the point that they think licensing legalese sucks, and wants to license their work accordingly, then fair enough.

It's a little absurd that I shouldn't be able to, in plain words, express "This is my own work, and you can do whatever you want with it". Eg. I shouldn't need 'warranty disclaimer' to not be at risk of liability, unless I was explicitly providing some kind of guarantee in the first place. (It's just a bit of freely available software, hardly leaving a dangerous item out on the streets.)

Any legal system that leaves its citizens unable to be protected by simply using clear, plain and unambiguous language is failing in its duty to some extent, so I'm perfectly sympathetic to developers who choose "fuck that shit" as a personal preference. :)

[agwa]

> If someone wants to make the point that they think licensing legalese sucks, and wants to license their work accordingly, then fair enough.

As a protest license, it makes some sense, but I do not think that's what draws most people to it. People choose it because they want their code to be used by anyone, because they think it's the most "open." This is the motivation that the parent commenter gave for the WTFPL. But as a protest license, it's ideologically motivated just like the GPL and does a poor job at letting anyone use their code.

> It's a little absurd that I shouldn't be able to, in plain words, express "This is my own work, and you can do whatever you want with it". Eg. I shouldn't need 'warranty disclaimer' to not be at risk of liability, unless I was explicitly providing some kind of guarantee in the first place. (It's just a bit of freely available software, hardly leaving a dangerous item out on the streets.)

As much as you may wish this to be the case, it's not. It would be a pretty expensive way to make a point if you end up being sued because of the lack of a warranty disclaimer. This is a risk which I think is not adequately conveyed to people who choose the WTFPL.

So sure, it's a personal choice, but if you do choose it you're not doing yourself or anyone else any favors.

[tomchristie]

> It's ideologically motivated just like the GPL and does a poor job at letting anyone use their code.

Agree that it isn't a good choice if what you want is the most permissive, inclusive license.

(Completely with you there, and hadn't noticed the misjudged "with the openness, you can't beat the WTFPL" above.)

> Sure, it's a personal choice, but if you do choose it you're not doing yourself or anyone else any favors.

I wouldn't and don't use it for my projects, but I'd absolutely defend anyone else's choice to do so.

The choice to go with a license that actively eschews the standard reliance on legalese is a form of self expression. If someone chooses to use it and disregard the supposed legal risk, then I totally respect that.

[jordigh]

The WTFPL is approved both by OSI and the FSF, both of whom had lawyers look at it. It looks like they do know what it means.

I'm more of a GNU GPL guy myself, but the WTFPL isn't a bad license.

Edit: Ah oops, OSI did not approve WTFPL. Oh well.

[reubenmorais]

In addition, OSI does not recommend using CC0 for software: http://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero

[agwa]

They don't approve of WTFPL either...

[reubenmorais]

You're right, I was fooled by the GP comment who said they do.

[agwa]

This lawyer disagrees: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8104407

He even points out that using it could get you sued due to the lack of a warranty disclaimer by default.

I've heard other stories of companies refusing to use WTFPL-licensed code, and that alone should discourage you from using it if you goal is really to let anyone use the code with no hassle.

Edit: the FSF doesn't recommend it (in contrast to CC0, which they do recommend if you want a public-domain license): http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#WTFPL

[_puk]

Sounds like we need a "It's not my f-ing problem" licence.

[stared]

To be honest, I never used WTFPL, except for one April Fools' Day project.

As you say, CC0 is the way to go for transmitting things to the public domain (when it's applicable; many European countries do not have the concept of "public domain").

[amirouche]

not yet. It in the process of being worked out in France, at least.

[marcosdumay]

What's hard to understand in "do what the fuck you want to"?