Revised License Committee Report for March 2009

[wtfpl user]

2009/3/16 Martin Michlmayr <tbm at cyrius.com>:
> * Russ Nelson <nelson at crynwr.com> [2009-03-15 01:41]:
>> The only (ONLY) reason to write a license rather than putting your
>> software into the public domain is because you plan to sue at least
>> one of your users eventually.
>
> That's not true.  As I said during the OSI call, the WTFPL was written
> in Europe where you don't seem to be able to put something into the
> public domain.  So you need a license that effectively does the same.

A work effectively put into the public domain can not be copyright
licensed at all. This is clearly not the case with WTFPL licensed
works.

I just note that WTFPL is on the list of

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses

"The following licenses qualify as free software licenses"

"WTFPL, Version 2
This is a free software license, very permissive..."

OSI, please follow the GNU and approve the WTFPL as a license
obviously compliant with the OSD in addition to the GNU "four
freedoms".