On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Robert Wall <[email protected]> wrote: > n Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Grant Bowman <[email protected]> wrote: >> Is the WTFPL really the most appropriate? > > In my opinion, yes. It accurately conveys the restrictions I wanted to > put on CD sleeve licensing (read: none), while avoiding overly > legalistic language. It's on the list of FSF free licenses ( > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses ) > and is used by packages shipped in various distributions (including > (according to the website; I have not verified this) Debian and thus > likely Ubuntu). Therefore, I believe it is appropriate from the > standpoints of my personal preference and legal soundness. > > The complaint I assume you might have about it is the F part of WTFPL. > We considered creating a new license with a different name, but > ultimately decided that license proliferation is a larger evil (and > more confusing, and more work) than what it would prevent. >
<snipped> Interesting. I wasn't aware of WTFPL. Does anyone know how this is different from Public Domain? cheers, Sameer -- Dr. Sameer Verma, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Information Systems Director, Campus Business Solutions San Francisco State University http://verma.sfsu.edu/ http://opensource.sfsu.edu/ http://cbs.sfsu.edu/ http://is.sfsu.edu/ -- Ubuntu-us-ca mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-us-ca
