Create a new account
The WTFPL brings blissful clarity to a heated issue.
While I endorse its spirit, I'm afraid it suffers from the failings of many other such licenses, namely, lack of indemnification.
If you've ever been through the process of getting business - esp. E&O - insurance, you'll understand that indemnification is pretty important. Which is why some licenses have been updated recently (e.g.,
Apache 2.0) to indeminify. Sure, it won't stop you from getting sued, but it makes harder for the plaintiff to get very far unless they can prove malici
I agree, but the AFL falls short on a count at which the WFTPL is unbeatable: brevity and simplicity.
Personally, my ideal licence (for works I am not significantly invested in; GPL otherwise) would state the following:
This is very close to the MIT licence, except there is no copyright notice obligation. You may just not claim you wrote it.
Not allowed to claim you wrote the software doesn't prevent my brother from claiming I wrote it.
I prefer to use MIT, with releasing it into the public domain as a close second. I seriously dislike the GPL.
Good catch on the loophole, but I wasn’t drafting licence text – merely outlining the statements. One would hope that a lawyer would catch that, and I would never write an actual licence without having a lawyer look at it.
I does not surprise me that you dislike the GPL. Frankly, I would have been surprised if you didn’t. I think copyleft has its place, though. (Just like non-free software does.) The MIT licence is what I use as well when I don’t care about copyleft (ie. in most
Get More Comments