I actually renamed it to 'butterdb' a while ago because some people found fuckitdb hard to swallow. You can check out the code here: https://github.com/Widdershin/butterdb. I have grown a bit as a programmer since then, but I appreciate any feedback you might have.
I actually used this in production against my own recommendation to run the matching for /r/longboarding's Secret Santa. All of our data came from Google Forms, so it just made sense.
Hit me up if you have any questions.
If you'd use butterdb if it had that feature, please let me know.
So maybe I'm nitpicking here but this project is not an ORM. There is no relational database here. Also it doesn't do joins, doesn't instrument attributes, makes no effort to convert object hierarchies to flat tables, etc, etc.
This is a (de)serialization library for google spreadsheets. Not much different from a CSV, XLS or even html table (de)serializer.
It's a nice hack though and certainly got its uses.
Keep in mind languages evolve over time and definitions change ;)
But more seriously, it's legally risky to have anything to do with code licensed under WTFPL because it does not actually specify that you can do anything with the code without possible legal reprisals, from which no protection is offered. Probably safe to point and laugh at it, though.
EDIT: gnu.org also says "We do not recommend this license" ,pointing to the Apache license as providing better protection against 'patent treachery'. (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html)
* It's not explicit that the user can redistribute the software freely.
* It's not explicit that you're free from warranty, meaning that, unlike basically all code ever written, you're on the hook for bugs and defects, just like a physical product.
Yes, it does say "do what you want," but that's not necessarily good enough for lawyers.
And if so, then have the capital letters mattered? Would it be less legally operative if written in camel case?
(2)Subject to subsection (3), to exclude or modify the implied warranty of merchantability or any part of it the language must mention merchantability and in case of a writing must be conspicuous, and to exclude or modify any implied warranty of fitness the exclusion must be by a writing and conspicuous. Language to exclude all implied warranties of fitness is sufficient if it states, for example, that "There are no warranties which extend beyond the description on the face hereof."
I don't know if the definition of "conspicuous" has ever been tested in court, but that's the idea. I'd be interested to see it used as ammunition against clickwrap EULAs, though.
Names don't have to mean anything, but certain names are still unacceptable.
Digging on PyPI, I found the new package named butterdb. The version is bumped from .13 to .14, though that might just be the name change. In any case, it might be a good idea to change the submission to reflect the new name and the new package.
Just wrap it with FuckIt.py (previously discussed at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6858855 ) "to make sure your Python code runs whether it has any right to or not"
I originally intended this library to be a joke library, hence the "don't use this for anything important". I think I will remove that bit and just improve any issues people run into.