On December 18, 2015 9:32:15 PM EST, Julien Kyou <[email protected]> wrote: > >On 12/18/2015 01:35 PM, Mark Holmquist wrote: >> >> In any case, I'm curious about OP's opinions, because simply posting >a >> license and a few extracts from its website is a poor way to express >an >> argument. Facts are open to interpretation. >>
I agree but I'm terrible at that so this is what happens Anyways, I just don't like seeing open-source being abused. So when I learnt of this zero clause license, I felt sick. > >I guess I should have been clearer > this (for anyone how hasn't seen it) is the WTFPL > > DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE > Version 2, December 2004 > > Copyright (C) 2004 Sam Hocevar <[email protected]> > > Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified > copies of this license document, and changing it is allowed as long > as the name is changed. <--[0] > > DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE > TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION > > 0. You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO. <--[1] > >[0]meaning only this document not the licensed materials? > >[1]so basically closing the source is ok? > I was not really asking this, so much as pointing it out > >On 12/18/2015 06:43 AM, anonymiss wrote: >> >> Ah, it can get worse than this. >> I have (luckily) forgotten the name, but there's one "open" source >> license of one particular individual who excludes people from using >the >> software who don't fit in his (racist) view of the world or who live >in >> (long list of countries). >> > >Ya. That looked pretty bad. > > > On 12/18/2015 01:37 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote: >> >> >> On 12/18/2015 10:35 AM, Mark Holmquist wrote: >> >>> And there's nothing wrong with being anti-copyleft, copyleft has its >>> problems, especially in the case of very small programs. >>> >> >> FWIW, I respect the principled anti-copyleft views from >> http://copyfree.org but they aren't trashingly anti-GPL or whatever, >> they are promoting the idea of maximum compatibility and rejecting >> copyright etc. largely. >> > >Absolutely, I agree 'permissive-non-copyleft' has a place but for most >things I'd sooner just slap a GPL on and be done -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
