Hacker News Reader

I really dont see whats the confusion on WTFPL, the license states you "CAN DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE", this is code/work i don't want to be entitled nor endorsed nor looking for "royalties". Most corporate people will probably relicense under their own terms the code/work and I (as a developer/creator) couldn't care about it... so whats the "pain" and "confusion" on this lawyer?

View on HN

> "Most corporate people will probably relicense"

Okay, is there evidence of this? who else has done it? is there existing legal precedence for this action? will presenting something that says "WHAT THE FUCK" in it cause me embarrassment in a corporate setting? how is our exposure for implicit vs explicit license agreements?

You are thinking as if there were a "litigation in process", licenses are looked only if one the parties decided to sue, usually the "creator" or "author" of the work are the ones which are "suing" because he wants to gain royalties for the "work" he is done but in the context of WTFPL, given that "i license my work under this license" this non-existant because m licensing "my work" as something near "public domain" (if you accept the premise that even such us-specific legal term applies, which usually isn't) so pretty much all your question don't matter, there won't be a legal precedence if there isn't something to "sue" maybe for liabilities but this is something rare to see outside us.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com