Talk:WTFPL

message: A third opinion has been requested.  It isn't clear what the question is.  Please state what the question is.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The last paragraph of  cites some individuals’ self-published opinions about the WTFPL’s validity as a software license, or about whether or not they personally just like it. Do they belong here? I say the relevance of these personal opinions (primarily Atwood’s) is unclear, with no qualifications related to contract law (a software license being a type of contract) and no third parties discussing them; User:Shaddim seems to believe that their having the ability to use the license, an opinion about it, and a biography on Wikipedia makes even a personal preference relevant. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

text: Also, I’m not convinced that WP:ABOUTSELF condones using self-published opinions about other things. I presume “third parties” in #2 refers to legal entities, but if the source claims the author holds this opinion about that thing, is that considered information about the author? Assuming of course that we never establish the author as being an expert in the field per WP:SPS. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The above isn't a question but a statement of opinion.  It still isn't clear to me what the difference of opinion is.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave my opinion, and I gave his as I understood it:  What remains unclear? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

text: Actually, let’s make this dead simple: We disagree about whether self-pubished opinions should be listed. Clear enough? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  I agree that self-published opinions are not worth listing.  However, I have seen many times that one of the reasons for dispute resolution is that one editor has a different idea of what a second editor is saying than the second editor has of what they are trying to say.  I don't know, even if you said it, that the other editor thinks that self-published opinions should be listed.  I agree that they shouldn't, but I still don't know if both editors agree that that is the question.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: How about the part where he said ? These are his words. This is the disputed point. I’ve since attempted to establish two of them as coming from expert sources, so a case can be made for those SPSes; but I still see no rationale for considering Jeff Atwood an expert source on this subject (hence this edit), and Shaddim never explained what qualified any of them as expert sources or even agreed that it was necessary. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Third Opinion

message: It turns out that GitHub User sirkris started a WTFPLv3, and after some nudging, established a standalone repo for it. The repo can be found at https://github.com/sirkris/WTFPL/, the license at https://github.com/sirkris/WTFPL/blob/master/WTFPL.md and discussion leading up to its creation at https://github.com/sirkris/System-47-Delay-Loader-for-Multiple-Monitors/issues/1
v3 is notable because:
- it disclaims warranty, unlike v2
- it is not listed at wtfpl.net, and that website hasn't been updated since 2012.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.97.198 (talk) 23:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  WTFPL v3 

message: I recently updated the DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO BUT DON'T BE A DICK PUBLIC LICENSE which is what I use for a lot of my personal projects. This adds a clause asking not to "be a dick about it" (I'm not a lawyer but I wanted to cover my ass while still allowing people to do what the fuck they want with my code), no-warranty disclaimer, beerware clause, IBM 'evil' clause, and clarification that commercial use is allowed along with re-licensing under a different license. It also makes the criticism of GPL explicit by using that license's restrictions as an example of "being a dick about it". I think it is a good license, but I'm biased because I wrote it so didn't want to just add it to the article myself. --Einsidler (talk) 11:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional example of fork