Skip to main content
10 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Feb 9, 2014 at 18:31 comment added Domenic Well, OK, I got un-lazy and followed some links: caca.zoy.org/browser/libcaca/trunk/COPYING lolengine.net/browser/trunk/COPYING bitbucket.org/drbb/monkeysay/src/… hmm. Given how different this is from normal license practices in my communities I am less comfortable with the WTFPL now.
Feb 9, 2014 at 18:27 comment added Domenic I would feel more comfortable with this answer if there were some example packages that use this style, e.g. one of the ones referenced by "Every major Linux distribution (Debian, Fedora, Arch, Gentoo, etc.) ships software licensed under the WTFPL, version 1 or 2"
Feb 9, 2014 at 18:18 comment added Ishmaeel Yes, and the first recommendation in the WTFPL site is exactly that. He just calls the file "COPYING" instead of "LICENSE".
Feb 7, 2014 at 21:16 comment added Domenic It's convention to include a LICENSE or LICENSE.txt file with the package in my circles.
Feb 7, 2014 at 19:35 history edited Ishmaeel CC BY-SA 3.0
added 92 characters in body
Feb 7, 2014 at 19:18 history edited Ishmaeel CC BY-SA 3.0
added another recommended option
Feb 7, 2014 at 19:16 comment added Ishmaeel Well, those licenses do not seem to have copyright notices attached to their text (does not mean they are not copyrighted themselves) I'd say just refer to the license as shown in the FAQ page (instead of pasting it verbatim into your code) and you'll be fine.
Feb 7, 2014 at 19:15 review First posts
Feb 7, 2014 at 19:50
Feb 7, 2014 at 18:58 comment added Domenic What I find weird about this is that it contravenes common practice for other licenses like MIT or BSD. See e.g. github.com/gruntjs/grunt/blob/master/LICENSE-MIT#L1 and github.com/npm/npm-install-checks/blob/master/LICENSE#L1
Feb 7, 2014 at 18:56 history answered Ishmaeel CC BY-SA 3.0