The license is even more flexible than the MIT license.
Never could I ever explain open source licensing better than this comic.
The last clause, I think, sounds like it is meant to cover the work in question (the code). I am not asserting this is true, but lawyers have accepted this as being true. For example, the free software foundation (which has lawyers more skilled in copyright law than most places) accepts this as a free license.
I wish more people used it.
"Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified copies of this license document, and changing it is allowed as long as the name is changed."
Notice nowhere in the WTFPL is the source code, documentation or any other IP other than the license itself actually mentioned. Compare this to the grant in the MIT license:
"Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:"
Of course you could argue "well, everyone knows that it's MEANT to grant license to the source code if you put it in a LICENSE file" but in my experience, lawyers encountering the WTFPL have pretty strongly disagreed with that stance.
And again, given the paragraph immediately preceding "TERMS AND CONDITIONS.." one could reasonably argue that the terms apply to the license itself since nothing else is mentioned.
This is essentially the argument I encountered when our company was acquired and we had to do a license audit of all of our dependencies and ended up having to change our codebase to remove a couple (fortunately small) WTFPL projects.
(I still prefer BSD or MIT for myself though)
And no, I don't know what planet you live in, but it's not offensive to GPL evangelists (especially not more than proprietary licenses).
In fact, the big irony is that the FSF both approves the WTFPL and considers it GPL-compatible, [1] but the OSI rejects it entirely! [2]
The GPL evangelists have the upper hand here.
I was being facetious; it was a good-natured stab at Gnu folks, not meant to be offensive and certainly not serious. I know having a sense of humor is forbidden on HN but I can afford a few points for a silly joke every now and then. I still find the WTFPL itself hilarious in a good way. :-)
As 'good-natured stabs' go, it's pretty low-quality.
"Hooray Anarchy!" was in direct reference to the text of the license itself, specifically "0. You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO.", which is quite anarchic, if you didn't notice.
> I made no change in the intent of your words.
I'll grant that perhaps you truly did not catch my meaning (as explained above); regardless you did indeed paraphrase me not once but twice, to satisfy your need to call me out. Your perception of a hateful slur on my part is just that, perceived and not actual.
> As 'good-natured stabs' go, it's pretty low-quality.
Indeed, I never said it was a good joke. :-)
And now the poor horse is nothing but a bloody pile of meat. Satisfied?
> Your perception of a hateful slur on my part
Speaking of 'creating false arguments', where did I say (or imply) 'hateful slur'? Why do you get to paraphrase me and at the same time object to being paraphrased?
My point is that you take joy in something being offensive, then don't own that. It wasn't meant to devolve into all this, but you seem to not be getting my point just as you think I haven't gotten yours.
> And now the poor horse is nothing but a bloody pile of meat. Satisfied?
Well, we each beat a side of the poor thing :)
Disclaimers of implied warranties, e.g. warranty of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, need to be explicitly, and "conspicuously" disclaimed.
Apparently the legal profession has decided that means in ALL CAPS.
http://www.shakelaw.com/blog/why-is-your-contract-yelling-at...
[1]: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/joshleaves/licenjs/4174e04...
[2]: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/matildah/SPL/fb35894f14be4...
The license is obviously a bit tongue in cheek, but it's no different than a public domain license to GPL evangelists, other than being less legally rigorous.
I don't get your comment at all. For the life of me I can't understand why you use the word offensive or why you seem to delight in this license so much.
If you actually want to offend the GPL enthusiasts, may I recommend the "Anyone but Richard Stallman License" (https://github.com/landondyer/kasm/blob/04ef65a38f72636b9925...) as a much better alternative.