Hacker News Reader

Comment by dpcan | Hacker News Reader

3 main things bother me about this license:

1) The F word. I get it, lots of people don't care, use it, etc. But it's hard to be in a professional environment, use something that is WTFPL licensed and explain to another professional, a client, whatever, what it means. Wish there was another license that was just "Do whatever you want to" license.

2) OK, so I do whatever I want to with it. Is that "permission" I've been given? I'm not sure. But do you still own the copyright? Also, since I can do whatever I want, can I take your code, copyright it as my own and re-license it and sue you for giving it away for free?

3) So I can do what the F I want to with it, but is the person who licensed it now liable for any damages that may come from using it?

View on HN

He addresses your third point in the FAQ:

Why is there no “no warranty” clause?

The WTFPL is an all-purpose license and does not cover only computer programs; it can be used for artwork, documentation and so on. As such, it only covers copying, distribution and modification. If you want to add a no warranty clause for a program, you may use the following wording in your source code:

/* This program is free software. It comes without any warranty, to * the extent permitted by applicable law. You can redistribute it * and/or modify it under the terms of the Do What The Fuck You Want * To Public License, Version 2, as published by Sam Hocevar. See * http://www.wtfpl.net/ for more details. */

http://www.wtfpl.net/faq/

It doesn't cover anything that I can see. It doesn't say I am granted a right to copy, distribute, or modify the associated code. Only that I have these rights for the license file itself. The only part which could be read as pertaining to my rights over the code is "You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO."

That doesn't clearly grant me those rights or any rights, it just tells me to do what I like. It doesn't specify any rights that the copyright holder is waiving or granting under the terms of the license; and it can't reasonably be construed to say that the copyright holder disclaims all rights. So I do what I like, but perhaps the copyright holder reserves the right to sue me for whatever it is I decide I like to do with their code.

By contrast, if you decide to sue me for using code you released under an MIT license, the language in that is clear enough that a court can dismiss your suit if what I've done falls under the specific provisions in the license you attached to that code.

I'm not willing to stipulate that artwork cannot have an implied warranty that needs to be disclaimed. I'm even less willing to stipulate that for documentation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com