The MIT license states that you must include the license with the software and that the authors aren't liable for anything caused by the software, which to me is the same thing as the above mentioned license, but with a more respectable wording.
The DWTFYW licence is pretty much a "public domain", but with a stupid name.
The initial intention was to bring attention to the fact that the MIT
license isn't clear, and there alternatives that are pretty much the
same (in spirit) as the MIT license, but they are much more explicit
in their notice.
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Peter Aronoff <telemachus@arpinum.org> wrote:
Egor Skriptunoff <egor.skriptunoff@gmail.com> wrote:
Why not using extremely permissive license like the following:
https://tldrlegal.com/license/do-what-the-fuck-you-want-to-but-it's-not-my-fault-public-license-v1-(wtfnmfpl-1.0)#fulltext
That sort of license (intentionally or not) severely limits the use of
a piece of software. As I understand it, (and I am not a lawyer), it’s not
recognized as valid in many places. In addition, many larger companies or
groups don’t want to deal with software that uses such licenses because
it’s perceived (rightly or wrongly) as non-serious. I remember learning
that even placing something in the public domain is not without problems
because that too is not recognized as legal in some places.
P
--
We have not been faced with the need to satisfy someone else's
requirements, and for this freedom we are grateful.
Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson, The UNIX Time-Sharing System
