If you're interested in doing this sort of thing in a way that's socially acceptable, have a look at
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/" rel="nofollow">http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/</a><p>It provides a way to release rights in a way that isn't subject to the legal quagmire of "public domain", and isn't subject to tonal criticisms of WTFPL.
I am not a lawyer but like the new no evil license clause Doug Crawford put on various packages this I'm not sure that "do what the fuck you want" is particularly meaningful in a legal context. You know people have been saying "don't roll your own crypto" lately?<p>Don't write your own license.<p>Don't write your own contracts.<p>Don't write your own legal documents.<p>There are plenty of solid, well written and unambiguous licenses out there that one can use to offer your users the same freedoms without the WTF.
This isn't exactly news...<p><i>pulls out soap box</i> The WTFPL is great, though. It's a shame not more people use it. It seems to me that for truly free speech, restrictive licenses need to be abandoned, even if it's at the sake of a content donor's money (traditional copyright) or fame (copyright and copyleft). There are a lot of good arguments for the copyfree movement, in general. If we see freedom as being the absence of limitations, licenses like the WTFPL can really be considered the most free, and general arguments for free software can be applied appropriately.<p>And, as we've seen with the advent of unauthorized content distribution networks, people will treat work of merit as if it's licensed WTFPL anyway, whether the author/s like/s it or not. Rejecting confusing license terms makes it easier for projects to thrive in the open source community as well. It really confounds me how RMS can reject DRM but be so supportive of his own freedom-limiting psychological DRM of sorts.<p>Here's a list -- <a href="http://copyfree.org/licenses/" rel="nofollow">http://copyfree.org/licenses/</a> -- of these sorts of licenses, and a good, slightly more serious introduction to the public domain/copyfree/WTFPL movement in general, for those interested.
It's amusing and attractively concise, but I don't know if it would really be legally valid. It seems to me that there are two options. Either you want public software to remain public, in which case use a copyleft license, or you don't care whether the digital commons gets gatecrashed by proprietarians, in which case use permissive licenses such as MIT or BSD.
The only problem with that license is when someone uses it, then I make use of their code, then they sue me for copyright violation. Or my code kills someone in a hospital and the patient sues the guy who wrote the code. And they win in court because the license doesn't satisfy the requirements of the court.<p>Look, I wouldn't let a lawyer tell me how to write my Java code. And I won't let a non-lawyer tell me how to write a legally binding license.<p>(If a competent lawyer reviews this license and pronounces it good, then I retract my objection. If the license gets tested in court and wins then it gets my full support.)
I chose the ISC license for both of my projects.<p><a href="http://opensource.org/licenses/ISC" rel="nofollow">http://opensource.org/licenses/ISC</a><p>What would concern me about using that WTFPL license is there's no disclaimer about fitness for use/purpose, which might mean to someone "do what the fuck you want - including suing me".<p>Not trying to look like a scaremonger, just a personal view.
> changing it is allowed as long as the name is changed<p>> 0. You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO.<p>Those clauses do not agree.<p>Funny page, but I worry some people may actually use this.
Thank you all for commenting on the topic. Reading your words just one thing seems clear to me: very few people here actually know how licenses work (me included) and what consequences could be. That's bad. Very bad.