Please change license from WTFPL (e.g. to GPL)

[jaalto]

The code is covered by http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl. This license is, to put it mildly, rude and offending. Please consider choosing a well established license that promotes Open Source better. A Good list can be found at http://www.opensource.org/licenses

Emacs Lisp Code have traditionally used GPL-[23]+ at the beginning of file:

;;; file.el --- One line description

;; This file is not part of Emacs

;; Copyright (C) YYYY-YYYY First Lastname ;; Keywords: ;; Author: First Lastname address@example.com ;; Maintainer: First Lastname address@example.com

;; This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it ;; under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free ;; Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) ;; any later version. ;; ;; This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but ;; WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY ;; or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License ;; for more details. ;; ;; You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License ;; along with this program. If not, see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/. ;; ;; Visit http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html for more information.

[Silex]

GPL is much more restrictive than WTFPL. I think changing it to a BSD-like license would kinda achieve the same goals and remove the offensiveness away.

[dimitri]

Yeah, MIT, BSD (modern, 2 clauses) or PostgreSQL licence would be other choices I would consider. But really, the way I think about it, WTFPL is exactly the licence I want for el-get. Sorry about the "rude" parts of it, though.

Also please consider that el-get is not the first WTFPL licenced code to enter debian, that WTFPL is considered free by the FSF (see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#WTFPL ), and that it's entirely compatible with both BSD/MIT and GPL software (which is not the case with GPL).

Regards,

[jaalto]

I think there are much better and more professional alternatives to choose from. It's debatable how "free" BSD license really is. Philosophically BSD license allows to close the source and make subsequent versions non-free. Anyway, anything from OSI list as long as it is GPL compatible (to ensure Emacs Lisp code sharing), would be better.

In general, License fragmentation, is not a good thing in the long term.

[dimitri]

You're right in your analysis, and it would be really helpful if you would ask the OSI to add the WTFPL in their list of approved licences, as did the FSF already. Thank you!

[xiongchiamiov]

The OSI won't put the WTFPL on their accepted list of licenses because they believe it's redundant to the Fair License.

[DarwinAwardWinner]

You know, the WTFPL allows you to change it...

               DO WHAT YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
                    Version 3, January 2012

 Copyright (C) 2012 Ryan Thompson

 Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified
 copies of this license document, and changing it is allowed as long
 as the name is changed.

                DO WHAT YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
   TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION

  0. You just DO WHAT YOU WANT TO.

I guess this would now be called the WPL?

[jaalto]

OSI Comment[1]: "[WTFPL] It's no different from dedication to the public domain. (...) Mr. Michlmayr notes that public domain doesn't exist in Europe". For more information, see "Why the Public Domain Isn't a License"[2] by attorney Lawrence Rosen who is the Open Source professional in these matters.

All the reasons to always use one of the well established licenses and not to invent one's own.

[1] http://www.opensource.org/minutes20090304 [2] http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225

[xiongchiamiov]

Weren't you the one requesting a change? Your argument seems to be for keeping the current license...

[jaalto]

The OSI comment indicated that WTFPL would be interpreted similarly to "Public domain", which unfortunately is not a valid license internationally. Therefore "All the reasons to always use one of the well established licenses" like GPL, BSD, Apache et all.

[xiongchiamiov]

The reason the WTFPL exists is because of the legal ambiguities of public domain - it isn't even legal in some countries (iirc Germany) to release work into the public domain. Hence, we have the WTFPL - an explicit licensing of the same rights.

Isn’t this license basically public domain?

There is no such thing as “putting a work in the public domain”, you America-centered, Commonwealth-biased individual. Public domain varies with the jurisdictions, and it is in some places debatable whether someone who has not been dead for the last seventy years is entitled to put his own work in the public domain.

As I mentioned previously, in the meeting you linked to, the OSI voted to not include the WTFPL because they believed it to be the same thing as the Fair License, not because it was an illegitimate license.

Mr. Michlmayr moved that we reject the WFTPL as redundant to the Fair License. Mr. Tiemann seconded. Passed unanimously.

It should be noted that a no-warranty clause is a useful thing:

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://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/COPYING for more details. */

[dimitri]

After some research I could accept a move to the ISL licence, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_license. But as long as I don't understand what's wrong with WTFPL I see no urge in moving out from it.

[rmartinjak]

Sorry to bring up this "corpse" (this Issue appears on the first page of a Google search on "WTFPL"); I just want to share a quote:

I like offending people, because I think people who get offended should be offended (Linus Torvalds)

I highly agree, so here some more "fuck"s to offend: Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck! Maximum offense achieved? If not: FUCK!

[jd]

closing according to @dimitri

[gionkunz]

:+1: for @dimitri ! :-) I've the exact same situation with https://github.com/gionkunz/chartist-js but I will not change the license! For me WTFPL is as open as it can get because real freedom means to have not a single legal clause but as this would mean legal issues for the users there needs to be at least one clause. Which for me is to do what the fuck you want to :-)

[duncan-bayne]

                        _..._                              
                     .-'_..._''.                           
                   .' .'      '.\    .                     
     _.._         / .'             .'|                     
   .' .._|       . '             .'  |                     
   | '           | |            <    |                     
 __| |__  _    _ | |             |   | ____                
|__   __|| '  / |. '             |   | \ .'                
   | |  .' | .' | \ '.          .|   |/  .                 
   | |  /  | /  |  '. `._____.-'/|    /\  \                
   | | |   `'.  |    `-.______ / |   |  \  \               
   | | '   .'|  '/            `  '    \  \  \              
   |_|  `-'  `--'    __.....__  '------'  '---'.           
 .-.          .- .-''         '.             .'|           
  \ \        / //     .-''"'-.  `.          <  |           
   \ \      / //     /________\   \    __    | |           
    \ \    / / |                  | .:--.'.  | | .'''-.    
     \ \  / /  \    .-------------'/ |   \ | | |/.'''. \   
      \ `  /    \    '-.____...---.`" __ | | |  /    | |   
       \  /      `.             .'  .'.''| | | |     | |   
       / /         `''-...... -'   / /   | |_| |     | |   
   |`-' /                          \ \._,\ '/| '.    | '.  
    '..'                            `--'  `" '---'   '---' 

[jabbink]

(sorry for commenting in this very old thread)

FYI: the WTFPL does not explicitly cya in case your product did something wrong, there is however an adjusted version of the WTFPL which does this:

WTFNMFPL-1.0

[dimitri]

As mentioned before (IIRC) if I were to switch away from WTFPL I would pick ISC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_license). I'm ok with using the WTFPL as it is, even without the CYA wording, and if other contributors feel like we should change, please consider ISC: I will help transition to it.

[jabbink]

The main reason I posted my previous comment was to point to an issue this license could have (the missing cya clause), because I actually only found this issue via Google Search after searching for permissive software license. But yes, using the ISC license seems like a better choice, as it, afaik, states the same as the WTFNMFP license with the use of some better wording (more suitable for businesses, as a copy of the license has to be included to your end user).

[odigity]

Just wanted to chime in with support for keeping WTFPL. It seems like the only complaint in this thread is being offended by the work "fuck", which is silly. (You know you're dealing with emotional programming when people start using euphemisms like "unprofessional".)

And I love that Linus quote. The fact that the most important OS in the world is in the hands of someone with such a no-bullshit attitude is one of the few things I enjoy about living on Earth in this era.

[gsouf]

I dont see a problem with the WTFPL.

It's not so offending, this might be offending: http://vang.blob.core.windows.net/images/2013/03/26/linus-torvalds-220612.jpg

[marcmerlin]

@gsouf @odigity these are the problems with WTFPL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL#Legal_Problems It means to be a license that's cool and do whatever you want, but actually doesn't offer any protections and was written by someone who clearly does not understand law, nor (from that I've been told) has not been interested in improving the license to actually offer legal protection. At the same time, why bother when the MIT license already offers all this anyway. It's just sad that people think that WTFPL is a better license than MIT, when it really isn't.

[jabbink]

@marcmerlin hence the reason I suggested a change: it wasn't about the word "fuck". It was more about the legal issues with this license and therefore I agree with you.

[marcmerlin]

Right, I don't care about the word either, but it's a distraction from the fact that it's a non license.

[Ash-Crow]

That Wikipedia section cited above is poorly written and has no references. While it is true that the licence is rejected by the OSI, it is considered valid by the Free Sofware Fundation, the Fedora Project, and as for the "no warranty", this issue is addressed in the FAQ. http://www.wtfpl.net/faq/

[marcmerlin]

@Ash-Crow, are you a lawyer? Or did you get the wikipedia bit counter reviewed by a lawyer? Why do you say ithe wikipedia entry is poorly written? As for the FSF saying that it is a non recommended free software license, did you consider why they say it's "non recommended"? You know they have lawyers to review this too, right?

The intent of the license might be clear, but the way it's written is not legally sound, and that's what courts care about. The FSF simply stated that as a user, WTFPL means that the software is free, but that doesn't mean it's actually safe to use with that license which is why they slapped a "not recommended" on it. Are there any other free licenses that the FSF does not recommend be used? I personally don't claim to be smarter than them or their lawyers, or to the ones from OSI. Arguing this here further ad nauseam seems pretty counter productive. If software is meant to be shared in a way that's safe for the authors and user, slap a real license on it. MIT and BSD as both about as free as it gets, licenses.

[samhocevar]

@marcmerlin

was written by someone who clearly does not understand law

And you clearly eat your boogers, sir.

[marcmerlin]

@samhocevar my boogers are under WTFPL and therefore I do WTF I want with them.

[nzec]

Soooo. Does this project have no license now? How does it work?

[tribals]

@jaalto fuck you!

[stokito]

JFYI: the word “fuck” while being more or less acceptable in English when in other languages have a strict offensive meaning and you can’t use it (e.g. like a "cunt"). So in a courts it won’t be accepted. The only one license that doesn’t have issues is 0BSD:

• It’s used by Google for the Android part (Toybox) while the Public Domain is blocked. MS and Sumsung are using it too in their repos.
• The BSD licenses are well known for corporate lawyers and they’ll be fine with it.
• It doesn’t mention the problematic Public Domain but it’s effectively its equivalent.
• It’s quite popular and used even more often by WTFPL.
• It’s very short and doesn’t have many versions.
• It’s old and used since 2006

Just use the one with the same license to avoid fragmentation, confusion and spending time learning and checking about the license.

[duncan-bayne]

@stokito That's true; but also ...