Change license to something more standard

[rzvxa]

I want to suggest something similar to what happened to the nerdcommander.
My points are pretty much identical to what is discussed in this issue preservim/nerdcommenter#217.
Switching to another license can make it easier for people to use and/or contribute to the project.

I don't have any strong argument for/against any of the available licenses other than PUBLIC DOMAIN which doesn't really make that much of a difference with WTFPL; Since it is not considered a real license in many jurisdictions around the world(I've never consulted a lawyer about this but from what I've read on the internet I think it is true).

I'm going to ping a few of the people with most contributions to the project to chip in in this discussion.
@scrooloose @PhilRunninger @alerque @lifecrisis

[rzvxa]

This is also mentioned in #1280 which shows there is a real demand for it, And I'm not just suggesting this change for the sake of change alone.

[alerque]

My comments on the issue you linked as well as the previous re-license of nerdcommenter pretty much explains my position on this. The potential contributor with a legal reason for not being able to contribute under WTFPL is a pretty solid nudge in that direction too. Even if that person doesn't turn back up I'm sure there are others is similar positions.

I'd fully support a re-license to CC0. Actually I'd be fine with MIT or several other options too but my previous research suggests CC0 is the closest match with the WTFPL while being palatable to FOSS orgs, individuals on the prudish side (myself included), and also having some legal standing in places where public domain is not a thing.

Given the lack of barriers to re-licensing in this situation I would probably just let this sit around a little while collecting upvotes and any comments, then if nobody objected with unaddressed concerns we'll just go for it.

[rzvxa]

Thank you for pinning this issue, I didn't want to be rude and pin this without permission from you.

I think CC0 is a solid choice for this project. I personally license everything under MIT or (L)GPL-3(mostly for tools since in my opinion, they benefit the most from the sticky license); But CC0 has a similar spirit to the original license(minus the coolness), and it will raise the least amount of objections(and hopefully none).

[metagrapher]

I do have an objection to the license change. While I haven't contributed to this project, so you can take it as a philosophical grain of salt, I do not understand the issue of a non-license license. There are not any words that are less legally binding than others. It seems the real issue is around credit and attribution, possibly with indemnity and propriety.

I have reviewed the threads pertaining and have not found links to issues with real-world license objections, only conjectures that amount to a lot of words describing they don't like the license, presumably genuinely because it contains a word to which they object, but they don't want to feel prudish and say as much in words. I suggest this is the case, because the arguments don't actually hold water. I can't find cases where it actually barred someone from including good software in their release. Even in cases where there are would-be maintaners who have claimed objection based on the license, the objections were false: a deferral by a boss who didn't want to pay for code where they can't get a gaurantee of credit.

I do not see how adding more words makes the license more legally enforceable or less restrictive. If any change is necessary, you could drop the vulgarity and have a "legally binding" license in most jurisdictions, though it is legally binding already. Anyone has been free to modify the license themselves to include it in their project, if it is required to have a more restrictive or more legally binding license. The current license does allow for this. While most licenses govern what others can do with the code, the WTFPL is a sort of anti-license in that it binds the licensors from legally persuing licensees, not the other way around.

Any jurisdiction that would use this license to punish someone was going to use anything to punish them, because this license is literally "Do What The Fuck You Want", so it cannot be fouled. Yes, it is a real license. It simply doesn't govern the licensee, it governs the licensor, and that makes it the best license on the internet. We would be a better humanity if lawmakers wrote laws for themselves and not for others.

I suppose I will fork it myself at this time just to ensure there is a copy with this license, for posterity.

[zyansheep]

May I suggest the Unlicense license?
Pros:

• Specific and direct dedication to the Public Domain (unlike 0BSD), with fallback clause for warrantee/liability and for domains that don't respect public domain.
• Fun to read (although not as fun as WTFPL) and relatively simple to understand for the layperson (at least compared to CC0)
• About as popular as CC0.
• Specific to code, unlike CC0
• Ambiguous as to whether it also applies to patents (similar to the MIT or 0BSD license), unlike CC0 which explicitly applies only to copyright
• Approved by FSF and OSI (probably begrudgingly lol), and listed on https://choosealicense.com/licenses/
• Approximately as good (perhaps an even better) ideological statement against copyright as the WTFPL, but sans the curse words :)

Cons:

• Ambiguous how it'll be interpreted in certain juristictions without a notion of public domain, such as Germany, although reading the OSI mailing list discussion while it was being approved, it seems likely that courts will probably interpret it as intended. - See also the discussion here.
• More "correct" legalese than the WTFPL, but some people think its still not precise enough.
• Ambiguous name (I think its funny tho)
• Other critiques: https://chrismorgan.info/blog/unlicense/