[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] WTFPL Worse License Ever?

From: Yoni Rabkin
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] WTFPL Worse License Ever?
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2015 08:36:53 -0500
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Ramana Kumar <> writes:

> On 20 December 2015 at 03:02, Mark Holmquist <
>> wrote:
>     The GPL, for all the good it does in the world, is a more complex
>     license to administer and enforce. You must include license
>     headers in all of the files in your project, for example, which
>     may not be a viable option for some, or may be a step that others
>     ignore.
> It's a common misconception that the GPL is somehow distinguished in
> requiring you to include license headers in all the files in your
> project, because the FSF explicitly recommends doing so. However,
> this is not a GPL-specific recommendation. See
> licenses/gpl-faq.html#NoticeInSourceFile. You should be doing that
> with any free license.
> I'd say the GPL is distinguished in that its stewards have done their
> research and care about the purpose of a copyright license for
> promoting software freedom, and the legal mechanisms for implementing
> it. Others (like the WTFPL author) seem to think licensing is just a
> statement of philosophy or just for fun, and not a legal tool with a
> specific purpose.

Well said.

   "Cut your own wood and it will warm you twice"

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]