btw the license is nuts

nonoesp 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

WTFPL (Do What The F*k You Want To Public License) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL

This seems like a bad idea. Surely the warranty and liability disclaimer found in licenses like MIT exists for a reason.

▲

gorgoiler 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Off the top of my head the CAPITALIZED WARRANTY DISCLAIMER is specific to a subset of states in the US. If you’re outside those jurisdictions (or any other where it is required) then for aesthetic or principled reasons I can see why you wouldn’t kowtow to the legalese spiral.

	▲	infogulch 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Maybe don't drop the warranty disclaimer just yet. > The MMWA requires conspicuous disclosure of warranty terms (e.g., designations like "Full" or "Limited" as prominent titles). > The common practice of ALL-CAPS WARRANTY DISCLAIMERS (e.g., "AS IS, NO WARRANTY") stems primarily from state adoptions of UCC § 2-316, which requires disclaimers of implied warranties to be "conspicuous" (and suggests all-caps as one way, especially in plain text). - Grok https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_5c7db73a-ffd2-48b2-bb36-296f... That said, maybe it wouldn't be too hard to argue there is obviously no implied warranty with a crass license like WTFPL.

▲

swiftcoder 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Surely the warranty and liability disclaimer found in licenses like MIT exists for a reason

Obviously IANAL, but I entirely don't see how the WTFPL (which does not ask the consumer to accept any restrictions) would create an implied contract (which would seem to be a necessary precondition for a warranty obligation)?

▲

codeflo 14 hours ago | parent [-]

IANAL either, so my own legal theories are as creative as yours, but I'd like to offer the following data point: All unrestricted open-source licenses that were written by actual lawyers, from MIT to CC0, have found it necessary to include such a liability clause.

▲

Zambyte 13 hours ago | parent [-]

In what sense is the MIT license "unrestricted"?

▲

codeflo 12 hours ago | parent [-]

In the sense that when people want to use a piece of MIT-licensed software in another piece of software, they don't in practice find themselves restricted from doing so by the conditions of the license. "Permissive" might be a word I should rather have used.

▲

swiftcoder 12 hours ago | parent [-]

The MIT license does place one specific license restriction on its users. Specifically: "subject to the following conditions: the above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software"

	▲	Zambyte 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		This is what I was getting at. The MIT license has restrictions, so calling it "unrestricted" doesn't make sense.

▲

jesse__ 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Author here.. that was kind of the point.

▲

Zambyte 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

To be fair, most are.

▲

nurettin 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Better than LGPL which prevents you from static linking even if you give attribution.