I'm a fan of the license. https://www.wtfpl.net/about/

Besides other fun things about this license, using it effectively forbids Google employees to send patches to your projects. [1]

[1]: https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/patching#f...

▲

jareklupinski 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

TIL

> The Hippocratic License is an ethical software license created to ensure that open source software is not used for harmful purposes, aligning with human rights principles

▲

wvbdmp 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The paragraph doesn’t really explain the rationale for forbidding WTFPL and even Public Domain and CC0? They’re all fine for commercial use, aren’t they?

	▲	Hugsbox 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Only a guess, but it could be because WTFPL is effectively very similar to having no license at all from what I gather
	▲	andai 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I thought they were basically BSD/MIT but even less annoying.

▲

giancarlostoro 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I find it funny, but prefer just MIT or CC0. I like the idea of the GPL for core OS components you don't want to be locked down by anyone, but for everything else, unless you the developer intend to monetize so you can maintain it, MIT is fine (even if you intend to monetize it can be fine too).

▲

johanbcn 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> changing it [the license] is allowed as long as the name is changed.

But what if that's exactly what I want to do?

	▲	recursive 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Then it's allowed.