The point of WTFPL is exactly that: the user can do *whatever* the fuck they want with it. Anything. That includes taking it and shamelessly saying they developed it whole cloth or selling it to unsuspecting users who could get it for free with no strings attached if they knew better. It also means they can take it and rerelease it under a completely different more restrictive licence. Really the WTFPL is a parody/satire licence which pokes fun at the verbose open source licencing agreements but it's legally valid given the lack of limitations. Having said that and admitting the trapdoors people can take to co-opt the spirit of the licence (which is why the GPL is so verbose) I still think it's a little lame that google does that. I understand their position, but it's lame.
-blair On Aug 15, 3:54 pm, Bernd Matzner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > > Google take the *very* strong view of licence prolifiration and warned > > me that if I didn't change back to one of the 8 licences that they > > have listed my project would be thrown off their site. > > Interesting. Doesn't the MIT license, which jQuery itself is licensed > under, provide a max of freedom, except of course for keeping the > license information and a reference to the original author? The latter > seems absolutely appropriate if someone wants to use the author's > work, and the disclaimer would keep any author from legal issues. So, > while the WTFPL is an intruiging approach, wouldn't the MIT license > achieve what you, and Blair have in mind when licensing under WTFPL? > > Bernd
