[SahAssar]

Even then, IIRC CC0 is not that easy to apply to code (even CC do not recommend it for that: https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-comm... ), WTFPL is entirely untested (even more so than GPL/MIT which are also not entirely tested in courts) and some regions do not recognize public domain. For example sqlite sells a license for what is public domain code partially for the reason of "You are using SQLite in a jurisdiction that does not recognize the public domain" and "You are using SQLite in a jurisdiction that does not recognize the right of authors to dedicate their work to the public domain".

Also, when it comes to code dedicated to public domain it is good to consider what wikipedia says about implied warranty: "The licensing process also allows authors, particularly software authors, the opportunity to explicitly deny any implied warranty that might give someone a basis for legal action against them." It is always good to include a clause saying that there is no warranty, implied or otherwise (unless of course you provide a warranty, which you probably should not do without restrictions on OSS code).

[Hello71]

> the CC0 Public Domain Dedication is GPL-compatible and acceptable for software.

[SahAssar]

The link I provided from the authors of the license also says "We recommend against using Creative Commons licenses for software."

They say it's compatible, but not recommended.

[lights0123]

CC0 doesn't count as a typical CC license. The FSF and OSI both recommend using CC0 for software.