On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 21:27:11 -0400 Felyza Wishbringer wrote:
[...]
My proposed WTFPLv3 (2011)
http://gamingtools.com/WTFPLv3.txt
Which changed name of the license and copyright. and add 2
termsconditions statements
Updated from earlier today... a change to TC 1, which now states: You
have
My reading and understanding is that they are basically the same.
From the GPLv2, it states that the copyright holder (author) and
anyone who modifies or redistributes the code cannot be held liable to
you for damages.
From the proposed WTFPLv3, it states You are solely liable for 'what
you do
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:17:13 -0400 Felyza Wishbringer wrote:
My reading and understanding is that they are basically the same.
I am not convinced...
From the GPLv2, it states that the copyright holder (author) and
anyone who modifies or redistributes the code cannot be held liable to
you
Would this be better wording?
2. Nobody is liable for what .. you do with it
The WTFPL goes beyond disclaimer to place liability on the licensee.
That's an unusual step, and I'm not convinced that it preserves the
recipient's freedom.
--
-Felyza
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Le Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 07:02:53PM -0400, Felyza Wishbringer a écrit :
Would this be better wording?
2. Nobody is liable for what .. you do with it
Dear Felyza,
I think that unfortunately, there is no possiblity to have a license that is
short and fun / satyrical / provocative / …, and at
Felyza Wishbringer fel...@gmail.com writes:
Would this be better wording?
I don't have a lot of interest in constructing new license texts, since
I much prefer that all software distributors avoid unnecessary license
proliferation.
Please, instead of constructing new licenses, use an existing
I am planning on submissions to a project that is looking to finish up
their Debian legality. I found a license that pretty much works, but I
don't like that it has no warranty disclaimer. So, I modified it per
the license allowance, but I want an official 'yes its okay'.
It's very short.
First,
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 13:16:34 -0400 Felyza Wishbringer wrote:
[...]
I found a license that pretty much works, but I
don't like that it has no warranty disclaimer. So, I modified it per
the license allowance, but I want an official 'yes its okay'.
[...]
First, per the code of conduct, I am
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 09:45:58PM +0200, Simon Chopin wrote:
[...]
Actually, if you read Sam Hocevar's FAQ webpage about the WTFPL[1], this
issue is adressed by adding a separate disclaimer. It seems pretty hard
to miss. I must add that most of the time I see this licence used for
program
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 01:16:34PM -0400, Felyza Wishbringer wrote:
I am planning on submissions to a project that is looking to finish up
their Debian legality. I found a license that pretty much works, but I
don't like that it has no warranty disclaimer. So, I modified it per
the license
Hi,
Added Sam, and I hope he doesn't mind, as I think he's the one which can
give the best answer to this.
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 21:29:20 +0200
Francesco Poli invernom...@paranoici.org wrote:
DO WHATEVER THE DUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 3,
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 22:41:15 +0200 Ricardo Mones wrote:
Hi,
Hi Ricardo! (Hi Sam!)
Added Sam, and I hope he doesn't mind, as I think he's the one which can
give the best answer to this.
That's OK with me.
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 21:29:20 +0200
Francesco Poli
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011, Francesco Poli wrote:
Added Sam, and I hope he doesn't mind, as I think he's the one which can
give the best answer to this.
That's OK with me.
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 21:29:20 +0200
Francesco Poli invernom...@paranoici.org wrote:
DO WHATEVER THE
Since this has sparked some interesting debate over the wording, for reference:
WTFPLv1.0 (2000)
http://repo.or.cz/w/wmaker-crm.git/blob/refs/heads/master:/COPYING.WTFPL
WTFPLv1.1 (2010?)
https://www.ohloh.net/licenses/wtfpl_1_1
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/threadmill.git/plain/COPYING.WTFPL
14 matches
Mail list logo
