License

[Glenn Maynard]

Please use a standard license. Licenses are not a place for clever
jokes, nor is a crypto library; they both need to be trustable and
well-understood, and it's hard to trust a library that doesn't take
its legal status seriously.

I'll be sticking with the previous release from the original author,
whose competence was shown in his development of the software. I have
no plans of switching to a version maintained by people who think
licensing is a joke, nor to one that implies using the sentence "do
what the fuck you want to" in communications with customers and
coworkers asking questions about library licenses. Even if I did
that--not likely--they'd conclude that *I* don't take licensing
seriously, for accepting a license like this.

[Alejandro Mery]

totally agree.

Tom's Open Academic principle behind his choice of making his
libraries public domain is completely disrespected by the relicensing
choice of the current maintainer, while a two clauses BSD imo fits
perfectly in the spirit of both and in the environments where these
libraries are used.

Best regards,
Alejandro Mery

[Steffen Jaeckel]

Hi everybody,

MagicalTux and me, had a discussion on the upcoming license discussion and we've
agreed that it was correct for us (european users) to change the license to the
WTFPL.

The best explanation we found is written in the WTFPL wikipedia article
"The WTFPL is useful for software authors who would wish to release their
software to the public domain, except that many countries do not legally
recognize the ability to release a work directly into the public domain - for
example, all European countries."
c.f. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=WTFPL&oldid=400683188

Because several users seem to have problems either with the wording of the
license or the license itself, we decided to move to a dual-licensing concept.

So every user of the libtom projects can now decide to use either the

WTFPL

or the

Public Domain (where legally recognized)

license, which will be shipped in every future release.

The reason is simple why we chose these two licences:
They are the most permissive licenses that exist, they simply add no
restriction to the usage of the software.

This fact is neither given by BSD nor MIT or whatever other license.

In both cases, people can re-license the code as much as they want since there
exists no restriction.

Best regards,
Mark and Steffen

[Keith Willis]

On 05/01/11 15:06, Steffen Jaeckel wrote:
>
> MagicalTux and me, had a discussion on the upcoming license discussion and we've
> agreed that it was correct for us (european users) to change the license to the
> WTFPL.
>
> The best explanation we found is written in the WTFPL wikipedia article
> "The WTFPL is useful for software authors who would wish to release their
> software to the public domain, except that many countries do not legally
> recognize the ability to release a work directly into the public domain - for
> example, all European countries."
> c.f. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=WTFPL&oldid=400683188

Just my two cent's worth, but that does not explain why you could not
find a form of words which achieves the same thing without resorting to
profanity.

No developer in his or her right mind is going to use code containing
the current wording in a commercial project - they'd either become
fired, or a laughing stock.

[Thordur Bjornsson]

Bullshit.

If they company in question, cares so much about "profanity" in a licensce
that gives them the ability to do "what the fuck they want" with the code
that they decide to fire someone or make fun of them, rather then just use
the software if applicable has some serious issues and I wouldn't work there.

A company, does not need to show anyone the licensce and if the word "fuck"
outweights the technical merits and bottom-line savings in using a pice of
software, I'd urge stockholders to sue the management into oblivion.

And frankly, who are you to demand anything from the current maintainers
of the code ? The project is up on github, fork it and re-licensce it
and do the work.

Ah, but that requires work on your part. I'm guessing, you don't want to
do that, you'd rather make outrageous claims and try to bully the developers
into doing what you want, for free. Since it isn't enough that they are
already devloping software and allowing you to do what the fuck you want
with it, it licensce must also meet your criteria of political correctness...

How rude. Much ruder then the word fuck in a licensce text.

ciao, thib.

PS: Sorry for the rant, been a harsh day and this just rubbed me the wrong
way (:

[Jonathan Rosenne]

I think we should have a word with your teachers or with your parents.
Something seems to be awfully wrong with your education.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "LibTom Projects" group.
> To post to this group, send email to lib...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> libtom+un...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/libtom?hl=en.

[Sean]

Take it easy, Jonathan. Just because you can't think of an intelligent
response doesn't mean you should resort to puerile drivel.

[jem...@gmail.com]

No developer in his or her right mind is going to use code containing
the current wording in a commercial project - they'd either become
fired, or a laughing stock.

I'm excited to use it! Let's hope I don't get fired :) 

[b...@wjblack.com]

Big fan of the WTFPL.  My next OSS project will use it if at all possible.