blob: 918b52bd8197cb53eac144d5788a1e5daec2efca (
plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
|
title: WTFPL is a terrible license
no_h1: true
<div id="warning" class="alert alert-warning">
<span class="icon_message"></span>
Please reconsider the choice of WTFPL as a license.
<script src="/static/jquery.min.js"></script>
<script>
// @author rubenwardy
// @license magnet:?xt=urn:btih:1f739d935676111cfff4b4693e3816e664797050&dn=gpl-3.0.txt GPL-v3-or-Later
var params = new URLSearchParams(location.search);
var r = params.get("r");
if (r)
document.write("<a class='alert_right button' href='" + r + "'>Okay</a>");
else
$("#warning").hide();
</script>
</div>
# WTFPL is a terrible license
The use of WTFPL as a license is discouraged for multiple reasons.
* **No Warranty disclaimer:** This could open you up to being sued.<sup>[1]</sup>
* **Swearing:** This prevents settings like schools from using your content.
* **Not OSI Approved:** Same as public domain?
The Open Source Initiative chose not to approve the license as an open-source
license, saying:<sup>[3]</sup>
> It's no different from dedication to the public domain.
> Author has submitted license approval request – author is free to make public domain dedication.
> Although he agrees with the recommendation, Mr. Michlmayr notes that public domain doesn't exist in Europe. Recommend: Reject.
## Sources
1. [WTFPL is harmful to software developers](https://cubicspot.blogspot.com/2017/04/wtfpl-is-harmful-to-software-developers.html)
2. [FSF](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html)
3. [OSI](https://opensource.org/minutes20090304)
|
