6 ms·

Guess nothing I release will be used at Google. Oh well, none of it is particularly good or relevant anyway. Funny though, because they are doing exactly the op

Guess nothing I release will be used at Google. Oh well, none of it is particularly good or relevant anyway. Funny though, because they are doing exactly the opposite as what the license allows them to do.

scrollaway 8y ago
They're doing exactly what the license allows them to do: WTF they want. Which in this case, is not deal with it.
_ph_ 8y ago
I guess this is a case where the intent of the license might be obvious, but the legal details of the license not worked out well enough. I really don't understand why people, who basically want to open their sources to everyone, don't just take one of the more established licenses for that purpose, like MIT/BSD.
- Doctor_Fegg 8y ago
  Because it's an intentional thumbing-of-nose at licence wankery. WTFPL is a statement that "do what you want and stop being so precious about it".
  - _ph_ 8y ago
    Proper licensing of software is a technical requirement, if you want your software to be used. The technicalities of the law might be unneccessary complex, bizarre even in some cases, but thats how the law is. We programmers are not goint to change that. So, if you really don't care, just take the MIT license, which is about the simplest of the widely used licenses. With that license, anyone interested has a clear base to use your software. Unless of course, you don't intend to share your software for real in the first place.
    - burntsushi 8y ago
      Your original comment said you "didn't understand," not that you "didn't agree." The former prompts a very different answer than the latter, but you're acting as if you said the latter. To understand it, all you need to do is understand that some folks take actions based on ideological beliefs, often to the exclusion of pragmatism, knowingly or not.
      - _ph_ 8y ago
        No, it doesn't. I really do not understand why one thinks this is a good idea. Yes, people are free in their beliefs and expression. But if they try to do this with a nonstandard license, it only means, that the software is effectively not published as open source. The technicalities of the law are very complicated. Tiny mistakes can render a license unusable or just invalid. So, the best advice I can give any author is to stick to one of the well-known license, as this makes it very likely that the software can be used by others.
        burntsushi 8y ago
        > I really do not understand why one thinks this is a good idea. You really don't understand that sometimes people act idealistically, often to the exclusion of pragmatism? What don't you understand about it? Please consider that not everyone has the same life priorities as you.
- TheCoelacanth 8y ago
  WTFPL is essentially an ideological stance against the concept of intellectually property. To use the software you have to partially reject the importance of license compliance.

scrollaway 8y ago

They're doing exactly what the license allows them to do: WTF they want. Which in this case, is not deal with it.

_ph_ 8y ago

I guess this is a case where the intent of the license might be obvious, but the legal details of the license not worked out well enough. I really don't understand why people, who basically want to open their sources to everyone, don't just take one of the more established licenses for that purpose, like MIT/BSD.

Doctor_Fegg 8y ago
Because it's an intentional thumbing-of-nose at licence wankery. WTFPL is a statement that "do what you want and stop being so precious about it".
- _ph_ 8y ago
  Proper licensing of software is a technical requirement, if you want your software to be used. The technicalities of the law might be unneccessary complex, bizarre even in some cases, but thats how the law is. We programmers are not goint to change that. So, if you really don't care, just take the MIT license, which is about the simplest of the widely used licenses. With that license, anyone interested has a clear base to use your software. Unless of course, you don't intend to share your software for real in the first place.
  - burntsushi 8y ago
    Your original comment said you "didn't understand," not that you "didn't agree." The former prompts a very different answer than the latter, but you're acting as if you said the latter. To understand it, all you need to do is understand that some folks take actions based on ideological beliefs, often to the exclusion of pragmatism, knowingly or not.
    - _ph_ 8y ago
      No, it doesn't. I really do not understand why one thinks this is a good idea. Yes, people are free in their beliefs and expression. But if they try to do this with a nonstandard license, it only means, that the software is effectively not published as open source. The technicalities of the law are very complicated. Tiny mistakes can render a license unusable or just invalid. So, the best advice I can give any author is to stick to one of the well-known license, as this makes it very likely that the software can be used by others.
      - burntsushi 8y ago
        > I really do not understand why one thinks this is a good idea. You really don't understand that sometimes people act idealistically, often to the exclusion of pragmatism? What don't you understand about it? Please consider that not everyone has the same life priorities as you.
TheCoelacanth 8y ago
WTFPL is essentially an ideological stance against the concept of intellectually property. To use the software you have to partially reject the importance of license compliance.