Off the top of my head the CAPITALIZED WARRANTY DISCLAIMER is specific to a subset of states in the US. If you’re outside those jurisdictions (or any other where it is required) then for aesthetic or principled reasons I can see why you wouldn’t kowtow to the legalese spiral.
> Surely the warranty and liability disclaimer found in licenses like MIT exists for a reason
Obviously IANAL, but I entirely don't see how the WTFPL (which does not ask the consumer to accept any restrictions) would create an implied contract (which would seem to be a necessary precondition for a warranty obligation)?
That is a fact.. LGPL can unintentionally contaminate the code base, and why https://wxwidgets.org/ had to have a more open license to cross-port programs from/to other platforms (especially Android and windows often needed Static builds just for practical reasons.)
Additionally, a public-domain/CC0 license can run up against some organizations policies. It is better to release under several licenses to reach as many users as possible. Personally prefer Apache 2.0, as 10 years from now someones situation may need that...
Sad a grief'er decided to bury your response. Happy holidays =3
WTFPL (Do What The F*k You Want To Public License) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL
This seems like a bad idea. Surely the warranty and liability disclaimer found in licenses like MIT exists for a reason.
Off the top of my head the CAPITALIZED WARRANTY DISCLAIMER is specific to a subset of states in the US. If you’re outside those jurisdictions (or any other where it is required) then for aesthetic or principled reasons I can see why you wouldn’t kowtow to the legalese spiral.
1 reply →
> Surely the warranty and liability disclaimer found in licenses like MIT exists for a reason
Obviously IANAL, but I entirely don't see how the WTFPL (which does not ask the consumer to accept any restrictions) would create an implied contract (which would seem to be a necessary precondition for a warranty obligation)?
5 replies →
Author here.. that was kind of the point.
To be fair, most are.
Better than LGPL which prevents you from static linking even if you give attribution.
That is a fact.. LGPL can unintentionally contaminate the code base, and why https://wxwidgets.org/ had to have a more open license to cross-port programs from/to other platforms (especially Android and windows often needed Static builds just for practical reasons.)
Additionally, a public-domain/CC0 license can run up against some organizations policies. It is better to release under several licenses to reach as many users as possible. Personally prefer Apache 2.0, as 10 years from now someones situation may need that...
Sad a grief'er decided to bury your response. Happy holidays =3