Do What the Fuck You Want to Public License

It's a bad license for two reasons: One, it does not cover the case where it's not possible to place stuff in the public domain (CC0 does). Two, it's alienating some users unnecessarily. Licenses are practical, there's no reason to invent a new term for concepts that already have well-known identifiers. Put your jokes outside the license section.

There are many other licenses that are similarly permissive, but that lawyers actually have vetted.<p>If you ever want interesting commercial adoption of software, you need to make sure the associated ip / software licenses are solid

I use MIT for this. Already well known, stablished, and has the same effect.<p>It is also less offensive to people who get offended by words.<p>That can be an advantage or a detriment; it depends on you.

This may be nitpicking, but it seems rather restrictive to force renaming of the license in the case of its modification. That is not very "do what the fuck you want to" ...

This sounds like a more care-free way to do the same thing as <a href="http://unlicense.org" rel="nofollow">http://unlicense.org</a><p>Personally I'd choose unlicense instead of WTFPL.

How is this different from an impolite MIT license?<p>Edit: also, for the interested, there is a free e-book from O'Reilly explaining the major free software licenses <a href="http://oreilly.com/openbook/osfreesoft/book/index.html" rel="nofollow">http://oreilly.com/openbook/osfreesoft/book/index.html</a>

OMWFL<p>Obey my will forever license. Copying or creating derivative works shall irrevocably enslave you to my will forever.

So, if I can just do what the Fuck I want to, then can I download your code and then re-license it as proprietary and charge royalties to everyone else who is just doing what the fuck they want to with it? I mean - I'm doing what the fuck I want to soooooo......<p>This is probably a stretch or something, but really, my point is that this license is so incredibly open to interpretation that I get worried about using code licensed with it every time.

I tend to do things with less legalism, with the copyheart (which is not a licence)<p><a href="http://copyheart.org/" rel="nofollow">http://copyheart.org/</a>

See also it romantic counterpart: <a href="https://github.com/pygy/The-Romantic-WTF-Public-License" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/pygy/The-Romantic-WTF-Public-License</a><p>/shameless plug

wow didn't know this was fsf approved.<p>the in-your-face-ness of the name makes it a great tool for talking about copyright with someone and making a point.

Hackers care too much about licenses...

My gamedev bros use this for our libraries, and I'd love to see wider adoption of it--mostly due to the spirit of the thing.<p>However, the number of people who come out and bawww about not picking a more widely recognized license (generally, LGPL or BSD) is disappointing; folks, if you want good licenses, you have to set an example.<p>I implore my fellow developers to use this wherever feasible--show some guts.