

Why WTFPL is bad for you - aimhb

If you ever find yourself needing to choose a license for your software project, and you think of WTFPL, don&#x27;t. Use the MIT License instead.<p>The motive behind using WTFPL is obvious: It&#x27;s novel, it&#x27;s a bit whimsical, and it dispenses with the stuffiness of normal licenses — but besides the fact that it&#x27;s becoming an old joke, WTFPL really isn&#x27;t much better than no license at all, and here&#x27;s why.<p>Google Code provides a good explanation[1] of why releasing your code into the public domain is bad for your project. First, people in certain countries (e.g. France) won&#x27;t be able to fork your project. But more importantly: &quot;it&#x27;s somewhat risky to release code without explicitly disclaiming liability or warranty; you&#x27;re potentially opening yourself to lawsuits from accidental damage that may result from somebody using your software.&quot;<p>This is the key, and it&#x27;s why most software license include an all-caps disclaimer of warranty and liability. The WTFPL doesn&#x27;t have this, which is why you should choose an equally permissive (but more protective, for you) license, e.g. MIT.<p>Here&#x27;s a good comparison of different licenses: http:&#x2F;&#x2F;web.archive.org&#x2F;web&#x2F;20090317083515&#x2F;http:&#x2F;&#x2F;developer.kde.org&#x2F;documentation&#x2F;licensing&#x2F;licenses_summary.html<p>[1] https:&#x2F;&#x2F;code.google.com&#x2F;p&#x2F;support&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;FAQ#Can_I_host_code_that_I_have_placed_in_the_public_domain?
======
phlyingpenguin
Re: warranty clause

The FAQ has a section explicitly addressing warranties with a free WTFPL
sample snippet to use. You are free to modify your WTFPL, or specify warranty
separately. I don't see this as a big issue, but I suppose it could be easy to
miss too.

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

