Re: [libreplanet-discuss] WTFPL Worse License Ever?

[Julien Kyou]

On 12/18/2015 01:35 PM, Mark Holmquist wrote:
> In any case, I'm curious about OP's opinions, because simply posting a
> license and a few extracts from its website is a poor way to express an
> argument. Facts are open to interpretation.

I guess I should have been clearer
 this (for anyone how hasn't seen it) is the WTFPL

 DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
                    Version 2, December 2004

 Copyright (C) 2004 Sam Hocevar <sam@hocevar.net>

 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.                                        <--[0]

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

  0. You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO.                     <--[1]

[0]meaning only this document not the licensed materials?

[1]so basically closing the source is ok?


On 12/18/2015 06:43 AM, anonymiss wrote:
> Ah, it can get worse than this.
> I have (luckily) forgotten the name, but there's one "open" source
> license of one particular individual who excludes people from using the
> software who don't fit in his (racist) view of the world or who live in
> (long list of countries).

Ya. That looked pretty bad.


 On 12/18/2015 01:37 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> On 12/18/2015 10:35 AM, Mark Holmquist wrote:
>
> > And there's nothing wrong with being anti-copyleft, copyleft has its
> > problems, especially in the case of very small programs.
>
> FWIW, I respect the principled anti-copyleft views from
> http://copyfree.org but they aren't trashingly anti-GPL or whatever,
> they are promoting the idea of maximum compatibility and rejecting
> copyright etc. largely.

Absolutely, I agree 'permissive-non-copyleft' has a place but for most 
things I'd sooner just slap a GPL on and be done