Revised License Committee Report for March 2009

[Russ Nelson]

Dag-Erling Smørgrav writes:
 > The author claims that his motivation for writing the WTFPL was to solve
 > problem of "unacceptable obnoxious clauses" in GPL- and BSD-style
 > licenses, but that problem has already been solved.  The "Fair License"
 > was submitted for OSI approval in January 2004, almost five years before
 > the WTFPL.  It is even shorter than the WTFPL, and far more readable.

Moreover, the license itself is unacceptably obnoxious.  Its very name
cannot be mentioned in polite company.  There *is* still such a thing
as polite company, y'know.

So let's say that you submitted the WT*PL.  Would it be approvable?
No.  It serves no purpose.  Yes, a license CAN be used to disclaim
warranty, but this one does not.  Yes, a license CAN be used to deny
use of a trademark, but this one does not.  Yes, a license can require
that you keep its terms constant, but this one does not.

This license does nothing to protect the licensor, and gives the
licensees all permissions.  It *is* the public domain, is not a
license, and is not needed by anybody whose purpose is anything other
than to annoy others, waste their time, and create a public bad.

This license has gone before the board and has been rejected.  Further
discussion here is off-topic.  I expect self-discipline, but it it's
lacking, I will take steps.

-- 
--my blog is at    http://blog.russnelson.com
Cloudmade supports http://openstreetmap.org/ 
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241    
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  |     Sheepdog