Revised License Committee Report for March 2009

[wtfpl user]

2009/3/14 Russ Nelson <nelson at crynwr.com>
>
> wtfpl user writes:
>  > This is patently not true. A *license* is never equivalent to a dedication
>  > to the public domain. The "Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License"
>  > licensors don't dedicate software to the public domain. For example, imagine
>  > that you may want to ask the authors of the "Do What The Fuck You Want To
>  > Public License" works for a copyright license not titled with the word
>  > "Fuck"... and you'll get it! (For the extra price.)
>
> Huh?  But I fucking want to relicense the software under a fucking
> different fucking license, fuck.  So I bloody fucking well, and
> there's not a fucking thing you can do about it, because you've
> fucking given me fucking permission to do it, because I fucking
> want to, fuck.

I'm not sure how that would help you when a copyright owner of a work
released under the WTFPL will sue you alleging copyright
infringement... which license will you bring up in your defense?

>
>  > How is that not "Open Source"?
>
> Because it's fucking obviously fucking stupid, you fucking fucker.

Well, something may well seem obviously stupid to you
(absolute-fuckin'-ly) but I fail to see what.

>
>  > Please approve the license.
>
> Fuck off and die.  If you don't think that's an appropriate thing to
> say, then I think your license doesn't have an appropriate thing to
> say.  Sheesh.  Come back with a serious license that might be
> enforcible in a court of law.

Since it is practically impossible for a licensee to breach the WTFPL,
it is indeed sort of unenforceable on that side. But why do you think
that the WTFPL is unenforceable against a licensor (as a defence to
the infringement claim)?

>
> Pay me $10 and I'll rewrite this fucking email without the word fuck
> in it.  No, make that $100.

It's okay as it is.