A. The other licenses include very explicit copyright grants. Copyright is a bundle of rights. Literally. The other licenses are explicitly mentioning what copyright rights you get and what you can do with them.
You aren't.
This opens the world up to fun arguments over what "Do whatever you like meant", with one side arguing that "no, i didn't mean the right to publicly perform" and the other side arguing it does.
It may seem like this would never happen, but trust me when i tell you this is what will happen (and in fact, it has actually happened out of court) :)
Unlike BSD/etc, it also makes things like "the scope of any implied patent grant" super unclear.
Without specifying exactly what the user can do with it, it's unclear what patent rights they are going to get with it.
2. It has no warranty disclaimer. In the US, you are opening up anyone who uses this license and produces commercial software to implied warranty claims. They happen. Without a disclaimer, you will lose.
I could go on. WTFPL is actually one of the few licenses the companies I work for ban, because it is so bad for people in practice.
I would love to live in a utopia where nobody should have to worry about these things and i could forget about the open source lawyer side of my life (and i spent a lot of my life trying to help get us there). But we aren't there, and acting like we are isn't going to help anyone, and doesn't advance any cause, either.
So, please, don't create new licenses, and if you are, take the time to understand why people have written existing licenses the way they have.
It's inefficient if your assumptions about the audience are wrong. If you know your audience, sarcasm is highly effective, high-density mode of communication.
A. The other licenses include very explicit copyright grants. Copyright is a bundle of rights. Literally. The other licenses are explicitly mentioning what copyright rights you get and what you can do with them.
You aren't.
This opens the world up to fun arguments over what "Do whatever you like meant", with one side arguing that "no, i didn't mean the right to publicly perform" and the other side arguing it does.
It may seem like this would never happen, but trust me when i tell you this is what will happen (and in fact, it has actually happened out of court) :)
Unlike BSD/etc, it also makes things like "the scope of any implied patent grant" super unclear. Without specifying exactly what the user can do with it, it's unclear what patent rights they are going to get with it.
2. It has no warranty disclaimer. In the US, you are opening up anyone who uses this license and produces commercial software to implied warranty claims. They happen. Without a disclaimer, you will lose.
I could go on. WTFPL is actually one of the few licenses the companies I work for ban, because it is so bad for people in practice.
I would love to live in a utopia where nobody should have to worry about these things and i could forget about the open source lawyer side of my life (and i spent a lot of my life trying to help get us there). But we aren't there, and acting like we are isn't going to help anyone, and doesn't advance any cause, either.
So, please, don't create new licenses, and if you are, take the time to understand why people have written existing licenses the way they have.