

Do what the fuck you want to public license - henrygrew
http://www.wtfpl.net/

======
tptacek
Also known as the "I am willing to put my house at risk to make a political
point nobody cares about" license:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5733050#up_5733477](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5733050#up_5733477)

If you're impatient, skip to the part in that thread about the model railroad
Java software guy.

~~~
Sephiroth87
I tried to follow that tread but I got lost (not very verse in legalese :( )

Could someone recap me why giving something i created away for free could lead
ME to troubles?

~~~
passepartout
Basically this:

>>> Right now, the license does not properly disclaim any implied warranties,
which puts the developer at risk.

------
nfoz
Use CC0 if you actually want to do this:

[http://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/](http://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/)

[https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)

------
dpcan
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?

~~~
mandalar12
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/](http://www.wtfpl.net/) for more details. */

[http://www.wtfpl.net/faq/](http://www.wtfpl.net/faq/)

~~~
pekk
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.

------
LukeB_UK
Previous discussion from 23 days ago:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7457668](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7457668)

------
alexvr
I don't think this is worthy of the front page. It's not useful or clever
whatsoever.

~~~
peterwwillis
It's useful in describing to people why this is a bad license.

------
pekk
If I do what I want to with your code, that doesn't mean you aren't going to
sue me for doing it.

~~~
passepartout
Although the validity of the license could be disputed because of the
obscurity of the permission, the legal recourse you'd have is the "estoppel".
Meaning if I have a license (and thus the author's permission that goes with
it) to act, and the author later sues me for something that is already
permitted, the estoppel defense is raised to dismiss the claim.

~~~
pekk
But the author hasn't clearly granted me any permissions. He just said to do
what I want to. Which is what I do anyway. So why bother saying it?

Even if we can construe "do what you want to" as granting some kind of
permission, it isn't clear what permissions it's granting. It can't really be
that I have his permission to do literally anything I want to. That's not a
reasonable contract. Since it appears to permit everything, it also permits
things which the author would easily and rightfully be able to sue me for,
which the author can't waive. So it doesn't permit just anything I want to do.
But that's what it says. So what does it permit? The hell of it is that there
is no way for me to know until I'm already in trouble. The language of the
license doesn't specify any class of safe acts regarding the code, some court
has to decide what it allows. And I really have no way of knowing whether what
I'm doing with the code will trigger a suit or whether the court will decide
it wasn't permitted. While estoppel could be worth trying if you got into this
jam, it isn't clear that estoppel will save you as a user of WTFPL code. And
if it isn't clear to me, it won't be clear to an author who licensed a project
WTFPL and wants a legal remedy against me for some use of his code; even
having an issue go to court threatens my livelihood pretty effectively.

------
yarrel
Also known as the bargepole license.

------
panon
URL Blocked

The URL that you are attempting to access is a potential security risk. Trend
Micro OfficeScan has blocked this URL in keeping with the network security
policy. URL: [http://www.wtfpl.net/](http://www.wtfpl.net/) Risk Level:
Dangerous Details: Verified fraud page or threat source

------
praeivis
Isnt dont use any license and dont put (c) more simple?

~~~
danray
Simpler, but not effective. In almost every country in the world, copyright
vests in the author automatically, even if the author doesn't use the old "All
Rights Reserved" magic words.

Practically speaking, not including anything about copyright is just going to
make your users (or their lawyers) ask questions before they ship, or before
they're acquired, or....

If you really want to put it into the world for anyone to use without
restriction, put it in the public domain (e.g.,
[http://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/](http://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/)).
But public domaining doesn't happen by accident — just failing to mention
copyright doesn't cut it.

------
lawnchair_larry
Nothing about this is news

