PDA

View Full Version : My new license.



Bachstelze
July 23rd, 2008, 12:32 PM
http://fkraiem.org/dwthywwt.txt


"Do Whatever The Hell You Want With This" License
Version 1.0 - July 2008
by Firas Kraiem


To the full extend permitted by applicable law, I hereby grant anyone the right to use, distribute and/or
modify this work under any form, for any purpose, and with no restriction or condition whatsoever. Copy it,
rewrite it, claim you wrote it. Whatever. I don't care.


Let the flame begin!


(Some credit should go to The Fluff for the idea, but neither him nor I care about such things as credits, and he'll never read this anyway. So Fluffy, get lost, dude ;))

LaRoza
July 23rd, 2008, 12:34 PM
I am going to sue you for stealing my license...

collinp
July 23rd, 2008, 12:34 PM
I need this license in alot of places lol :lolflag:.

Bachstelze
July 23rd, 2008, 12:36 PM
I am going to sue you for stealing my license...

LIAR!

http://laroza77.wikidot.com/


Unless stated otherwise Content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License

LaRoza
July 23rd, 2008, 12:38 PM
LIAR!

http://laroza77.wikidot.com/

It is an Ex Post Facto theft. (You stole before I claimed rights to it)

Moustacha
July 23rd, 2008, 12:42 PM
You need to add a "You can't sue me for this software" clause, or something along those lines :P

Vorian
July 23rd, 2008, 12:42 PM
HA! That is very funny :)

LaRoza
July 23rd, 2008, 12:44 PM
HA! That is very funny :)

Staff emeritus... I am getting all choked up. :-(

Bachstelze
July 23rd, 2008, 12:47 PM
You need to add a "You can't sue me for this software" clause, or something along those lines :P

I'm wondering about this. I'll have to do a bit of searching to see whether those are really necessary, or just act as reminders.

This is not meant as a joke, by the way, Mr. Emeritus, I'm actually going to use it :p

popch
July 23rd, 2008, 01:02 PM
Except for being a bit shorter, is there any practical difference to - say - MS's EULA?

bapoumba
July 23rd, 2008, 01:10 PM
Lol, sounds like a light and polite version from Sam Hocevar's License (http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/) (some wording and links can hurt eyes, you have been warned).

loell
July 23rd, 2008, 01:18 PM
so what's the FSF equivalent for this license?

paul101
July 23rd, 2008, 01:21 PM
copyright 2019 paul101 anyone caught using this licence will be fined £200, sent to the paulosoft fund. all rights reserved. and you also agree that you will not use the ubuntuforums servers for ... the development, design, manufacture, or production of missiles or nuclear, chemical and biological weapons


your house may be repossessed, and car crushed for failing to abide by these terms and conditions... have a nice day :)



P.S @LaRoza... i'm watching you :twisted:

LaRoza
July 23rd, 2008, 01:34 PM
P.S @LaRoza... i'm watching you :twisted:
If I were someone else, I'd watch me too. I am dead sexy.

paul101
July 23rd, 2008, 01:37 PM
If I were someone else, I'd watch me too. I am dead sexy.

at least you think you are ;)

LaRoza
July 23rd, 2008, 01:40 PM
at least you think you are ;)

No, I have a webcam and I can say for sure.

paul101
July 23rd, 2008, 01:47 PM
No, I have a webcam and I can say for sure.

but you dont have a mirror :razz:

loell
July 23rd, 2008, 01:49 PM
No, I have a webcam and I can say for sure.

are you sure you disabled cheese's sexy effect? ;)

LaRoza
July 23rd, 2008, 01:58 PM
but you dont have a mirror :razz:

I do, but why use a mirror when you can use a webcam with an http server to serve lives feeds over the network? (motion, which is a motion activated app)


are you sure you disabled cheese's sexy effect? ;)

I had to dull it down, to prevent any undo paradices with me falling in love with myself.

Heinzelotto
July 23rd, 2008, 02:02 PM
Hey ppl I just made a cool new licence:



"Do Whatever The Hell You Want With This" License
Version 1.0 - July 2008
by Heinzelotto


To the full extend permitted by applicable law, I hereby grant anyone the right to use, distribute and/or
modify this work under any form, for any purpose, and with no restriction or condition whatsoever. Copy it,
rewrite it, claim you wrote it. Whatever. I don't care.


:lolflag:

paul101
July 23rd, 2008, 02:05 PM
I do, but why use a mirror when you can use a webcam with an http server to serve lives feeds over the network? (motion, which is a motion activated app)



*worlds computer servers break down*

LaRoza
July 23rd, 2008, 02:07 PM
*worlds computer servers break down*

I keep it only on the LAN ;)

paul101
July 23rd, 2008, 02:08 PM
well, thats about five monitors exploded already. . . !

adamogardner
July 23rd, 2008, 02:18 PM
a liscence by virtue of it's existence, is restrictive. And if it is not in the least bit restrictive, then it's superfluous. For example, (sorry, philosopher with aspergers syndrome here) my driver's license doesn't give me permission to drive so much as it ensures that unlicensed humans don't. If I say, "lets go somewhere" nobody will say "OK, I have a license," but you may hear "can't, don't have a license," or "I lost my license" the exclamaition is to the negetive or restrictive aspect of the license.

LaRoza
July 23rd, 2008, 02:19 PM
a liscence by virtue of it's existence, is restrictive. And if it is not in the least bit restrictive, then it's superfluous. For example, (sorry, philosopher with aspergers syndrome here) my driver's license doesn't give me permission to drive so much as it ensures that unlicensed humans don't. If I say, "lets go somewhere" nobody will say "OK, I have a license," but you may hear "can't, don't have a license," or "I lost my license" the exclamaition is to the negetive or restrictive aspect of the license.

By default, someone who makes a work (like a webpage or work of art) has copyright on it and there are legal restrictions on other people. A more permissive license could give less restrictions in some cases.

Bachstelze
July 23rd, 2008, 02:41 PM
Lol, sounds like a light and polite version from Sam Hocevar's License (http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/) (some wording and links can hurt eyes, you have been warned).

Aye ;) I just ditched out the completely useless (c) thing and basically worded it in a less parodic way, but the idea is the same. It's not for the sake of politeness, though, I just like it better that way.

paul101
July 23rd, 2008, 02:44 PM
that's it. . . i'm going to eat that stupid licence. . . !

Prefix100
July 23rd, 2008, 02:51 PM
I had to dull it down, to prevent any undo paradices with me falling in love with myself.

To late. :)

bapoumba
July 23rd, 2008, 03:01 PM
Aye ;) I just ditched out the completely useless (c) thing and basically worded it in a less parodic way, but the idea is the same. It's not for the sake of politeness, though, I just like it better that way.
Yeah :)
You might want to have a disclaimer about no warranty as an addon for software, for ex (it's been already mentioned in the thread).

popch
July 23rd, 2008, 03:45 PM
I keep it only on the LAN ;)

That's what you think (leer)

billgoldberg
July 23rd, 2008, 03:52 PM
I'm using the license for sure.

edit: yup already using it.

az
July 23rd, 2008, 05:47 PM
Aye ;) I just ditched out the completely useless (c) thing and basically worded it in a less parodic way, but the idea is the same. It's not for the sake of politeness, though, I just like it better that way.

AFAIK, the copyright assertion is needed in order for you to be able to enable/enforce this license onto the work.

That's what is meant by applicable law.

Basically, copyright represents a collection of rights which are your's to do with as you please. And any software license uses copyright to assert some or all of those rights along with other clauses.


so what's the FSF equivalent for this license?

Public Domain. Just like Creative Commons' PD.

Bachstelze
July 23rd, 2008, 05:52 PM
AFAIK, the copyright assertion is needed in order for you to be able to enable/enforce this license onto the work.

This is wrong. In all countries that are parties to the Berne convention, copyright is automatically "enabled" onto a work the very moment it is created, without the need of a notice of any kind.

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.html#use


For works first published on and after March 1, 1989, use of the copyright notice is optional.

EDIT: and by the way, the (c) thing has absolutely no legal value, and never had. For it to be valid, the c has to be completely encircled, like this: ©.

MaximB
July 23rd, 2008, 06:02 PM
http://fkraiem.org/dwthywwt.txt


"Do Whatever The Hell You Want With This" License
Version 1.0 - July 2008
by Firas Kraiem


To the full extend permitted by applicable law, I hereby grant anyone the right to use, distribute and/or
modify this work under any form, for any purpose, and with no restriction or condition whatsoever. Copy it,
rewrite it, claim you wrote it. Whatever. I don't care.


Let the flame begin!


(Some credit should go to The Fluff for the idea, but neither him nor I care about such things as credits, and he'll never read this anyway. So Fluffy, get lost, dude ;))

It's basically a BSD license , well without the "claim it's yours" part.

Bachstelze
July 23rd, 2008, 06:04 PM
It's basically a BSD license , well without the "claim it's yours" part.

No it's not. The typical BSD-style license requires you keep the copyright notice of the author and a twenty-line-long no-warranty disclaimer written in ALL CAPS.

MaximB
July 23rd, 2008, 06:17 PM
No it's not. The typical BSD-style license requires you keep the copyright notice of the author and a twenty-line-long no-warranty disclaimer written in ALL CAPS.

So if something breaks up - can we blame you ? ;)

Bachstelze
July 23rd, 2008, 06:21 PM
So if something breaks up - can we blame you ? ;)

Read the link baps posted to the WTFPL. This is just the license, and it is intended to be used on all kind of works, not just software. Therefore, it only covers use and redistribution, but one is free to add a no-warranty disclaimer after it, no one ever said it should be used alone.

eragon100
July 23rd, 2008, 06:29 PM
I have an idea:

If you are ever going to make a useful program people might be willing to pay money for, I am going to:

1: download the compiled version

2: rename the exact same program

3: make it propietary so no-one can check to see if it's actually your program or not

4: ask money for it

5: become rich with no work! :)

Your license isn't going to stop me! :wink:

Bachstelze
July 23rd, 2008, 06:52 PM
I have an idea:

If you are ever going to make a useful program people might be willing to pay money for, I am going to:

1: download the compiled version

2: rename the exact same program

3: make it propietary so no-one can check to see if it's actually your program or not

4: ask money for it

5: become rich with no work! :)

Your license isn't going to stop me! :wink:

Sure. Go ahead and good luck ;)

The tricky part, though, is being able to convice people to pay you for something they can get from me for free. Despite what you seem to think, people are not stupid.

Ozor Mox
July 23rd, 2008, 06:56 PM
I have an idea:

If you are ever going to make a useful program people might be willing to pay money for, I am going to:

1: download the compiled version

2: rename the exact same program

3: make it propietary so no-one can check to see if it's actually your program or not

4: ask money for it

5: become rich with no work! :)

Your license isn't going to stop me! :wink:

That is exactly why I could never bring myself to license my work under the BSD licence or this one. I would choose the GPL, so that this wasn't possible.

eragon100
July 23rd, 2008, 06:58 PM
Sure. Go ahead and good luck ;)

The tricky part, though, is being able to convice people to pay you for something they can get from me for free. Despite what you seem to think, people are not stupid.

People aren't stupid, they don't know.

Example

A lot of people have never heard of OpenOffice.

If someone would sell that program under a different name, market it as a 100 % microsoft-office compatible office suite that costs just 20 $, instead of 200 $ or something, I am sure lots of people will buy it.

Best buy also sells Ubuntu for 20 $ in the retail store since a few weeks, in a box. They are selling a lot of copies, as far as I know.

People have never heard of ubuntu, and they don't say it's free :)

Bachstelze
July 23rd, 2008, 07:02 PM
People aren't stupid, they don't know.

Example

A lot of people have never heard of OpenOffice.

If someone would sell that program under a different name, market it as a 100 % microsoft-office compatible office suite that costs just 20 $, instead of 200 $ or something, I am sure lots of people will buy it.

Best buy also sells Ubuntu for 20 $ in the retail store since a few weeks, in a box. They are selling a lot of copies, as far as I know.

People have never heard of ubuntu, and they don't say it's free :)

Yeah. So... what? Do OpenOffice and Ubuntu use my license? Your argiument is baseless, everything you said can already be done with the GPL, and is even encouraged.

saulgoode
July 23rd, 2008, 07:19 PM
"Do Whatever The Hell You Want With This" License
Version 1.0 - July 2008
by Firas Kraiem


To the full extend permitted by applicable law, I hereby grant anyone the right to use, distribute and/or
modify this work under any form, for any purpose, and with no restriction or condition whatsoever. Copy it,
rewrite it, claim you wrote it. Whatever. I don't care.

So if you publish something under this license then I can modify it to contain libelous statements, seditious material, or national secrets. Wouldn't you, as a copyright holder on the work, then become indictable for slander or treason?

Bachstelze
July 23rd, 2008, 07:27 PM
So if you publish something under this license then I can modify it to contain libelous statements, seditious material, or national secrets. Wouldn't you, as a copyright holder on the work, then become indictable for slander or treason?

No. Because I am the copyright holder of my work, not yours.

jgrabham
July 23rd, 2008, 07:31 PM
Except for being a bit shorter, is there any practical difference to - say - MS's EULA?

Yeah, more people have read it (ba dum dum chhh) :lolflag:

Bachstelze
July 23rd, 2008, 07:33 PM
Yeah, more people have read it (ba dum dum chhh) :lolflag:

Also, you don't have to scroll down before you can click the "next" button, it therefore helps you preserve your mouse wheel.

popch
July 23rd, 2008, 07:37 PM
it therefore helps you preserve your mouse wheel.

Ah, I hadn't thought of that.

Er - do the mice have wheels where you live? And the cats?

saulgoode
July 23rd, 2008, 07:48 PM
No. Because I am the copyright holder of my work, not yours.

It is still your work. You have not transferred copyrights to me, merely licensed me to change your work. Note: I would also be liable, but that is not the point. The question is whether you are vulnerable.

Bachstelze
July 23rd, 2008, 07:53 PM
It is still your work. You have not transferred copyrights to me, merely licensed me to change your work. Note: I would also be liable, but that is not the point. The question is whether you are vulnerable.

Well, then wouldn't the same thing apply to any license that allows modification, under whatever conditions?

saulgoode
July 23rd, 2008, 08:41 PM
Well, then wouldn't the same thing apply to any license that allows modification, under whatever conditions?

I'm not certain you would be held liable for licensed modifications made to your work (I posed it as question), but it is interesting to consider. Is liability associated with copyright or with authorship/distribution?

If it is associated with copyright then releasing to the "public domain" should theoretically remove liability -- I can't imagine one could make libelous statements and avoid culpability by releasing his work to the public domain.

If liability is associated with authorship then would disclaimers in the license be meaningful? For example, the BSD license has the following:

IN NO EVENT SHALL <copyright holder> BE LIABLE FOR ANY
* DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
* (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;
* LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND
* ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
* (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
* SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
Yet if liability of the author (or distributor) is considered to be a separate issue than liability of the copyright holder, the author (or distributor) of the software might still be accountable (the disclaimer only exempts the copyright holder).

Bachstelze
July 23rd, 2008, 08:45 PM
I'm not certain you would be held liable for licensed modifications made to your work (I posed it as question), but it is interesting to consider. Is liability associated with copyright or with authorship/distribution?

The distinction you make is irrelevant. Copyright is associated with authorship. Therefore, how could I be liable for damage caused by the parts you wrote? I am not the author, and therefore I am not the copyright holder.

bruce89
July 23rd, 2008, 08:46 PM
Maybe there's a reason lawyers have a big input into licences.

Bachstelze
July 23rd, 2008, 08:47 PM
Maybe there's a reason lawyers have a big input into licences.

Yeah, they have to make a living ;) Do you honestly think the BSD folks paid an army of lawyers to have their input about their license?

bruce89
July 23rd, 2008, 08:50 PM
Yeah, they have to make a living ;) Do you honestly think the BSD folks paid an army of lawyers to have their input about their license?

No.

saulgoode
July 23rd, 2008, 09:16 PM
The distinction you make is irrelevant. Copyright is associated with authorship. Therefore, how could I be liable for damage caused by the parts you wrote? I am not the author, and therefore I am not the copyright holder.
But copyrights can be transferred, authorship cannot. If someone buys the copyrights to the song, is the original songwriter no longer liable for defamatory contents of the song?

Bachstelze
July 23rd, 2008, 09:28 PM
But copyrights can be transferred, authorship cannot. If someone buys the copyrights to the song, is the original songwriter no longer liable for defamatory contents of the song?

I believe he would still be, but I fail to see how this is relevant to the scope of this thread. In the case I publish something under this license and you make an addition that would be somehow illegal, you are both the author and the copyright owner of said addition. How could I possibly be liable for it?