
WTFPL – Do What the Fuck You Want to Public License - johnnyhead
http://www.wtfpl.net/about/
======
jeremysmyth
If you're interested in doing this sort of thing in a way that's socially
acceptable, have a look at
[http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/](http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)

It provides a way to release rights in a way that isn't subject to the legal
quagmire of "public domain", and isn't subject to tonal criticisms of WTFPL.

~~~
padolsey
There's also [http://unlicense.org/](http://unlicense.org/)

~~~
celebril
And also the FemSFPL: [https://github.com/Feminist-Software-Foundation/C-plus-
Equal...](https://github.com/Feminist-Software-Foundation/C-plus-
Equality/blob/mistress/LICENSE.FemSFPL)

------
steder
I am not a lawyer but like the new no evil license clause Doug Crawford put on
various packages this I'm not sure that "do what the fuck you want" is
particularly meaningful in a legal context. You know people have been saying
"don't roll your own crypto" lately?

Don't write your own license.

Don't write your own contracts.

Don't write your own legal documents.

There are plenty of solid, well written and unambiguous licenses out there
that one can use to offer your users the same freedoms without the WTF.

~~~
mikegerwitz
I was skeptical of this as well; I had the FSF licensing team confirm that the
WTFPL is a free software license a month or two ago. You can see it here:

[https://gnu.org/licenses/license-
list.html#WTFPL](https://gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#WTFPL)

From Joshua Gay:

> Our interpretation of this license is that it is > intended to allow you to
> do whatever you want with the > work. Therefore, we assume that this
> includes using, > copying, modifying, and distributing modifications for any
> > purpose.

He was, however, cautious to say "I can not conjecture how a court would
interpret that phrase" and recommended to consult a lawyer.

~~~
rakoo
It's a sad world we live in if the rights you give for a software work are
opt-in (you may do this and that) and not opt-out (you may not do this and
that)

------
robobro
This isn't exactly news...

 _pulls out soap box_ The WTFPL is great, though. It's a shame not more people
use it. It seems to me that for truly free speech, restrictive licenses need
to be abandoned, even if it's at the sake of a content donor's money
(traditional copyright) or fame (copyright and copyleft). There are a lot of
good arguments for the copyfree movement, in general. If we see freedom as
being the absence of limitations, licenses like the WTFPL can really be
considered the most free, and general arguments for free software can be
applied appropriately.

And, as we've seen with the advent of unauthorized content distribution
networks, people will treat work of merit as if it's licensed WTFPL anyway,
whether the author/s like/s it or not. Rejecting confusing license terms makes
it easier for projects to thrive in the open source community as well. It
really confounds me how RMS can reject DRM but be so supportive of his own
freedom-limiting psychological DRM of sorts.

Here's a list --
[http://copyfree.org/licenses/](http://copyfree.org/licenses/) \-- of these
sorts of licenses, and a good, slightly more serious introduction to the
public domain/copyfree/WTFPL movement in general, for those interested.

~~~
RossM
I've wondered before - what's the difference between WTFPL and just releasing
something into the public domain? The name-change bit seems to relate to the
license itself, rather than the licensed work.

~~~
dagw
The problem is that there is no such thing as a universally agreed upon
concept of public domain. If you actually care about licensing and want your
project to globally and legally be in something like the public domain, in the
US sense, then you're going to have to use something like the creative commons
CC0 license.

Of course if you don't really care all that much about the details of
international copyright law and just think it's cool to swear on the internet
then the WTFPL will be fine.

------
motters
It's amusing and attractively concise, but I don't know if it would really be
legally valid. It seems to me that there are two options. Either you want
public software to remain public, in which case use a copyleft license, or you
don't care whether the digital commons gets gatecrashed by proprietarians, in
which case use permissive licenses such as MIT or BSD.

------
mcherm
The only problem with that license is when someone uses it, then I make use of
their code, then they sue me for copyright violation. Or my code kills someone
in a hospital and the patient sues the guy who wrote the code. And they win in
court because the license doesn't satisfy the requirements of the court.

Look, I wouldn't let a lawyer tell me how to write my Java code. And I won't
let a non-lawyer tell me how to write a legally binding license.

(If a competent lawyer reviews this license and pronounces it good, then I
retract my objection. If the license gets tested in court and wins then it
gets my full support.)

~~~
johnnyhead
Thanks mcherm, this is the best counter-argument to the WTFPL I read all day.
I am myself extremely curious about what would happen in these two
circumstances: 1) someone uses my work and then sues me for copyright
infringment; 2) my work harms people.

~~~
mcherm
Unfortunately, the legal system is intentionally designed in such a way that
you can't easily satisfy your idle curiosity on that subject. You can ask a
lawyer, who'll give you their best guess, but the only way to tell for sure is
to get sued: there has to (with a few specialized exceptions) be an actual
controversy before a court considers a question. This was (in programmer
language) designed intentionally to protect scarce resources (court time) from
certain kinds of denial-of-service attacks.

------
scarygliders
I chose the ISC license for both of my projects.

[http://opensource.org/licenses/ISC](http://opensource.org/licenses/ISC)

What would concern me about using that WTFPL license is there's no disclaimer
about fitness for use/purpose, which might mean to someone "do what the fuck
you want - including suing me".

Not trying to look like a scaremonger, just a personal view.

~~~
willnorris
Toybox ([http://landley.net/toybox/](http://landley.net/toybox/)) takes an
interesting approach in that they use the ISC license, minus the notice
clause. (Strangely, they call call it a 2-clause BSD license, even though it
really isn't, but whatever). I'm generally not a fan of license proliferation,
but I do kinda like what they've done here.

And the lack of disclaimer of warranty in the WTFPL is not fear-mongering...
it's a real issue, and one of the reasons we (Google) don't allow our
engineers to use it.

------
prawks
> changing it is allowed as long as the name is changed

> 0\. You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO.

Those clauses do not agree.

Funny page, but I worry some people may actually use this.

------
johnnyhead
Thank you all for commenting on the topic. Reading your words just one thing
seems clear to me: very few people here actually know how licenses work (me
included) and what consequences could be. That's bad. Very bad.

------
EGreg
So I can change the name twice - once there and once back? :-)

------
chrismcb
Wouldn't you be better off just releasing it to public domain? I guess it
prevents you from rereleasing the software under the same name.

