[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-elitists
Subject:    Re: [linux-elitists] Viability of the WTFPL (was: Fwd: RFC:
From:       Rick Moen <rick () linuxmafia ! com>
Date:       2009-03-20 5:58:00
Message-ID: 20090320055759.GH31074 () linuxmafia ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Quoting Ben Finney (bignose+hates-spam@benfinney.id.au):

> I have not seen the case made for that, and I'm not seeing it when I
> read the license text. What's your reasoning here?

The licence grants permission only to "copy and distribute verbatim or
modified copies of this license document, and changing it is allowed as
long as the name is changed."  There is no reasonably clear grant
whatsoever concerning any copyrighted work _other_ than the licence
itself.

The bottom line _does_ say "You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO" -- 
but that motivates me to say "I do?  And what do I do that concerning?  
Do I do that in violation of someone's copyright?"

For a 13-line licence, it's amazingly INeffective at actually granting
clear permission to do anything other than fool around with the licence
text (if I rename it).

And the pity is, it's really not difficult to write a valid, utterly
clear permissive licence, even in 1/13 the line count:  I posted an
example here already, earlier today.

_______________________________________________
linux-elitists mailing list
linux-elitists@zgp.org
http://allium.zgp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-elitists
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]