|
|
|
|
|
|
by agwa
3930 days ago
|
|
|
> 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. |
|
|
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.