Re: [Geany-Devel] More Contributions (DevynCJohnson)

[Matthew Brush]

On 2015-11-11 9:16 PM, Lex Trotman wrote:

On 12 November 2015 at 14:49, Matthew Brush  wrote:

On 2015-11-11 3:36 PM, Lex Trotman wrote:


On 12 November 2015 at 02:07, Devyn Collier Johnson
[...]



I remember someone on GitHub in the Geany project (I do not remember who
or
where) mentioned something about adding WTFPL to the license templates.
Is
that still desirable? Are there other licenses any of you would like me
to
add in the future?



No.  Its not really a "license" to be encouraged IMHO.



Because of the swear word?


Well that doesn't help of course. :)

But mostly because (subject to the standard IANAL disclaimer) as I
read it, it allows you to do anything you want with the license, but
says nothing about any other material.

And without a disclaimer it would allow me to sue the pants off of you
if the software under it didn't do what you said it did.



From the FAQ[0]:

> Is the WTFPL a valid license?
>> Although the validity of the WTFPL has not been tested in courts,
>> it is widely accepted as a valid license. Every major Linux
>> distribution (Debian, Fedora, Arch, Gentoo, etc.) ships software
>> licensed under the WTFPL, version 1 or 2. Bradley Kuhn (executive
>> director of the Free Software Foundation) was quoted saying that the
>> FSF’s folks agree the WTFPL is a valid free software license.

Cheers,
Matthew Brush

[0]: http://www.wtfpl.net/faq/

___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.geany.org
https://lists.geany.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: [Geany-Devel] More Contributions (DevynCJohnson)

[Lex Trotman]

>>> Because of the swear word?
>>
>>
>> Well that doesn't help of course. :)
>>
>> But mostly because (subject to the standard IANAL disclaimer) as I
>> read it, it allows you to do anything you want with the license, but
>> says nothing about any other material.
>>
>> And without a disclaimer it would allow me to sue the pants off of you
>> if the software under it didn't do what you said it did.
>>
>
> From the FAQ[0]:
>
>> Is the WTFPL a valid license?
>>> Although the validity of the WTFPL has not been tested in courts,
>>> it is widely accepted as a valid license. Every major Linux
>>> distribution (Debian, Fedora, Arch, Gentoo, etc.) ships software
>>> licensed under the WTFPL, version 1 or 2. Bradley Kuhn (executive
>>> director of the Free Software Foundation) was quoted saying that the
>>> FSF’s folks agree the WTFPL is a valid free software license.

Hmmm, ok, clause 0, the operative clause is so brief I missed it :)

But the fact that it doesn't have a disclaimer is still risky.

>
> Cheers,
> Matthew Brush
>
> [0]: http://www.wtfpl.net/faq/
>
>
> ___
> Devel mailing list
> Devel@lists.geany.org
> https://lists.geany.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.geany.org
https://lists.geany.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: [Geany-Devel] More Contributions (DevynCJohnson)

[Matthew Brush]

On 2015-11-11 10:06 PM, Lex Trotman wrote:

On 12 November 2015 at 15:50, Matthew Brush  wrote:

On 2015-11-11 9:46 PM, Lex Trotman wrote:


Because of the swear word?




Well that doesn't help of course. :)

But mostly because (subject to the standard IANAL disclaimer) as I
read it, it allows you to do anything you want with the license, but
says nothing about any other material.

And without a disclaimer it would allow me to sue the pants off of you
if the software under it didn't do what you said it did.



  From the FAQ[0]:


Is the WTFPL a valid license?


Although the validity of the WTFPL has not been tested in courts,
it is widely accepted as a valid license. Every major Linux
distribution (Debian, Fedora, Arch, Gentoo, etc.) ships software
licensed under the WTFPL, version 1 or 2. Bradley Kuhn (executive
director of the Free Software Foundation) was quoted saying that the
FSF’s folks agree the WTFPL is a valid free software license.



Hmmm, ok, clause 0, the operative clause is so brief I missed it :)

But the fact that it doesn't have a disclaimer is still risky.



 From the next question in the FAQ[0]:


Why is there no “no warranty” clause?

  The WTFPL is an all-purpose license and does not cover only computer
  programs; it can be used for artwork, documentation and so on. As
  such, it only covers copying, distribution and modification. If you
  want to add a no warranty clause for a program, you may use the
  following wording in your source code:

  This program is free software. It comes without any warranty,
  the extent permitted by applicable law. You can redistribute it
  and/or modify it under the terms of the Do What The Fuck You Want
  To Public License, Version 2, as published by Sam Hocevar. See
   http://www.wtfpl.net/ for more details. */




Bottom line is its still crap, and should not be supported.




You expressed my sentiments about the GPL perfectly ... oh wait :)

Cheers,
Matthew Brush

___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.geany.org
https://lists.geany.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: [Geany-Devel] More Contributions (DevynCJohnson)

[Lex Trotman]

On 12 November 2015 at 15:50, Matthew Brush  wrote:
> On 2015-11-11 9:46 PM, Lex Trotman wrote:
>
> Because of the swear word?



 Well that doesn't help of course. :)

 But mostly because (subject to the standard IANAL disclaimer) as I
 read it, it allows you to do anything you want with the license, but
 says nothing about any other material.

 And without a disclaimer it would allow me to sue the pants off of you
 if the software under it didn't do what you said it did.

>>>
>>>  From the FAQ[0]:
>>>
 Is the WTFPL a valid license?
>
> Although the validity of the WTFPL has not been tested in courts,
> it is widely accepted as a valid license. Every major Linux
> distribution (Debian, Fedora, Arch, Gentoo, etc.) ships software
> licensed under the WTFPL, version 1 or 2. Bradley Kuhn (executive
> director of the Free Software Foundation) was quoted saying that the
> FSF’s folks agree the WTFPL is a valid free software license.
>>
>>
>> Hmmm, ok, clause 0, the operative clause is so brief I missed it :)
>>
>> But the fact that it doesn't have a disclaimer is still risky.
>>
>
> From the next question in the FAQ[0]:
>
>> Why is there no “no warranty” clause?
>>>  The WTFPL is an all-purpose license and does not cover only computer
>>>  programs; it can be used for artwork, documentation and so on. As
>>>  such, it only covers copying, distribution and modification. If you
>>>  want to add a no warranty clause for a program, you may use the
>>>  following wording in your source code:
  This program is free software. It comes without any warranty,
  the extent permitted by applicable law. You can redistribute it
  and/or modify it under the terms of the Do What The Fuck You Want
  To Public License, Version 2, as published by Sam Hocevar. See
   http://www.wtfpl.net/ for more details. */
>

Bottom line is its still crap, and should not be supported.

Cheers
Lex


>
> Cheers,
> Matthew Brush
>
> [0]: http://www.wtfpl.net/faq/
>
> ___
> Devel mailing list
> Devel@lists.geany.org
> https://lists.geany.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.geany.org
https://lists.geany.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: [Geany-Devel] More Contributions (DevynCJohnson)

[Matthew Brush]

On 2015-11-11 3:36 PM, Lex Trotman wrote:

On 12 November 2015 at 02:07, Devyn Collier Johnson
[...]


I remember someone on GitHub in the Geany project (I do not remember who or
where) mentioned something about adding WTFPL to the license templates. Is
that still desirable? Are there other licenses any of you would like me to
add in the future?


No.  Its not really a "license" to be encouraged IMHO.



Because of the swear word?

Cheers,
Matthew Brush

___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.geany.org
https://lists.geany.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: [Geany-Devel] More Contributions (DevynCJohnson)

[Lex Trotman]

On 12 November 2015 at 14:49, Matthew Brush  wrote:
> On 2015-11-11 3:36 PM, Lex Trotman wrote:
>>
>> On 12 November 2015 at 02:07, Devyn Collier Johnson
>> [...]
>>>
>>>
>>> I remember someone on GitHub in the Geany project (I do not remember who
>>> or
>>> where) mentioned something about adding WTFPL to the license templates.
>>> Is
>>> that still desirable? Are there other licenses any of you would like me
>>> to
>>> add in the future?
>>
>>
>> No.  Its not really a "license" to be encouraged IMHO.
>>
>
> Because of the swear word?

Well that doesn't help of course. :)

But mostly because (subject to the standard IANAL disclaimer) as I
read it, it allows you to do anything you want with the license, but
says nothing about any other material.

And without a disclaimer it would allow me to sue the pants off of you
if the software under it didn't do what you said it did.

Cheers
Lex

>
> Cheers,
> Matthew Brush
>
>
> ___
> Devel mailing list
> Devel@lists.geany.org
> https://lists.geany.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.geany.org
https://lists.geany.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: [Geany-Devel] More Contributions (DevynCJohnson)

[Lex Trotman]

>>>
>>
>> Bottom line is its still crap, and should not be supported.
>>
>
>
> You expressed my sentiments about the GPL perfectly ... oh wait :)

+1 :)

Cheers
Lex

>
> Cheers,
> Matthew Brush
>
>
> ___
> Devel mailing list
> Devel@lists.geany.org
> https://lists.geany.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.geany.org
https://lists.geany.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel