David Nalley (JIRA | 19 May 02:28 2012
Picon

[jira] [Created] (LEGAL-135) Is the WTFPL license acceptable

David Nalley created LEGAL-135:
----------------------------------

             Summary: Is the WTFPL license acceptable
                 Key: LEGAL-135
                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-135
             Project: Legal Discuss
          Issue Type: Question
            Reporter: David Nalley

Apache CloudStack (incubating) is trying to vet all of the bundled libraries and dependencies. One such
library is jquery.times [1], which is released under the WTFPL [2], which we'd like to continue using. I
suppose that we could perform an end run around this issue and merely re-license the software as that
appears to be explicitly permitted, but that seems a bit squirrely. 

[1] http://archive.plugins.jquery.com/node/3656/release
[2] http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

Ralph Goers (JIRA | 19 May 03:00 2012
Picon

[jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-135) Is the WTFPL license acceptable


    [
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-135?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13279379#comment-13279379
] 

Ralph Goers commented on LEGAL-135:
-----------------------------------

Am I reading the license correctly?  It says absolutely nothing about the software - only the license
itself. The significant paragraph says - 

"Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified copies of this license document, and
changing it is allowed as long as the name is changed."

So you are free to do what you want with the license document but it says nothing about whatever it is
supposedly licensing. 

I looked at the first link above but couldn't find any reference to the license. Where did you find that?

> Is the WTFPL license acceptable
> -------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LEGAL-135
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-135
>             Project: Legal Discuss
>          Issue Type: Question
>            Reporter: David Nalley
>
> Apache CloudStack (incubating) is trying to vet all of the bundled libraries and dependencies. One such
library is jquery.times [1], which is released under the WTFPL [2], which we'd like to continue using. I
(Continue reading)

David Nalley (JIRA | 19 May 04:14 2012
Picon

[jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-135) Is the WTFPL license acceptable


    [
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-135?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13279399#comment-13279399
] 

David Nalley commented on LEGAL-135:
------------------------------------

The jquery.timers library has the following in the source code, which is how I came up with what license: 
/**
 * jQuery.timers - Timer abstractions for jQuery
 * Written by Blair Mitchelmore (blair DOT mitchelmore AT gmail DOT com)
 * Licensed under the WTFPL (http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/).
 * Date: 2009/10/16
 *
 *  <at> author Blair Mitchelmore
 *  <at> version 1.2

The actual text of the license has: 

            DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE 
                    Version 2, December 2004 

 Copyright (C) 2004 Sam Hocevar <sam <at> hocevar.net> 

 Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified 
 copies of this license document, and changing it is allowed as long 
 as the name is changed. 

            DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE 
(Continue reading)

Ralph Goers (JIRA | 19 May 06:36 2012
Picon

[jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-135) Is the WTFPL license acceptable


    [
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-135?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13279431#comment-13279431
] 

Ralph Goers commented on LEGAL-135:
-----------------------------------

While I agree with your assessment, to me this license looks like somebody in high school wrote it or meant it
as a joke. It's intention is most likely similar to the MIT license
(http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php) or the BSD license
(http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php) but even more liberal, although in those you
will notice that they explicitly refer to what the license covers.  

Although I'm going to suggest that someone with more legal training should weigh in on this one just because
I don't think it is written very well, I doubt it will be a problem.

> Is the WTFPL license acceptable
> -------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LEGAL-135
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-135
>             Project: Legal Discuss
>          Issue Type: Question
>            Reporter: David Nalley
>
> Apache CloudStack (incubating) is trying to vet all of the bundled libraries and dependencies. One such
library is jquery.times [1], which is released under the WTFPL [2], which we'd like to continue using. I
suppose that we could perform an end run around this issue and merely re-license the software as that
appears to be explicitly permitted, but that seems a bit squirrely. 
(Continue reading)

Sam Ruby (JIRA | 21 May 13:24 2012
Picon

[jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-135) Is the WTFPL license acceptable


    [
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-135?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13280089#comment-13280089
] 

Sam Ruby commented on LEGAL-135:
--------------------------------

It looks like OSI rejected this license:

  http://www.opensource.org/minutes20090304

The initial reason proposed for rejection ("public domain doesn't exist in Europe") would be a concern but
it doesn't appear that the OSI could come to an agreement on this.  The ultimate reason they rejected this
("redundant to the Fair License") is not a concern to us.

We could task one of our legal resources with coming up with an opinion in the hopes of coming up with a general
policy, but unless this turns out to be a common request, I would much rather we focus initially on a tightly
scoped exception for a single project.

So, questions for CloudStack: would it be possible for licensees of CloudStack to chose to operate without
operate without jquery.times, possibly with reduced functionality?  How (precisely) would this
license be communicated?  Do we know of any actual or potential users (including both Free and proprietary
usages) of CloudStack who have actual concerns about this license?

                
> Is the WTFPL license acceptable
> -------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LEGAL-135
(Continue reading)

Craig L Russell (JIRA | 21 May 19:55 2012
Picon

[jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-135) Is the WTFPL license acceptable


    [
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-135?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13280312#comment-13280312
] 

Craig L Russell commented on LEGAL-135:
---------------------------------------

This license has been seen before although I can't remember where and a quick search of the archives was unfruitful.

I don't see any problems with using the jquery.times or other identically licensed code for this project. 

To me, the biggest risk in using code that is licensed under the WTFPL is in verifying that the code is in fact
what it claims to be (provenance). It's ok as long as the code being used is not in fact a rip-off of the real
code that exists elsewhere.

                
> Is the WTFPL license acceptable
> -------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LEGAL-135
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-135
>             Project: Legal Discuss
>          Issue Type: Question
>            Reporter: David Nalley
>
> Apache CloudStack (incubating) is trying to vet all of the bundled libraries and dependencies. One such
library is jquery.times [1], which is released under the WTFPL [2], which we'd like to continue using. I
suppose that we could perform an end run around this issue and merely re-license the software as that
appears to be explicitly permitted, but that seems a bit squirrely. 
(Continue reading)

Kevan Miller (JIRA | 21 May 23:08 2012
Picon

[jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-135) Is the WTFPL license acceptable


    [
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-135?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13280493#comment-13280493
] 

Kevan Miller commented on LEGAL-135:
------------------------------------

Closest example that I can recall were questions about "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil"
clause from the JSON License. Resolved as http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#json. BTW, I have
seen lawyers object to the JSON license -- to the point of preventing redistribution.

Is the provenance concern any greater with WTFPL than with any other alternative license?

> Is the WTFPL license acceptable
> -------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LEGAL-135
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-135
>             Project: Legal Discuss
>          Issue Type: Question
>            Reporter: David Nalley
>
> Apache CloudStack (incubating) is trying to vet all of the bundled libraries and dependencies. One such
library is jquery.times [1], which is released under the WTFPL [2], which we'd like to continue using. I
suppose that we could perform an end run around this issue and merely re-license the software as that
appears to be explicitly permitted, but that seems a bit squirrely. 
> [1] http://archive.plugins.jquery.com/node/3656/release
> [2] http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/

(Continue reading)

Craig L Russell (JIRA | 21 May 23:33 2012
Picon

[jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-135) Is the WTFPL license acceptable


    [
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-135?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13280521#comment-13280521
] 

Craig L Russell commented on LEGAL-135:
---------------------------------------

> Is the provenance concern any greater with WTFPL than with any other alternative license?

No. I was saying that this is my only concern. With a wildly permissive license like WTFPL, provenance might
possibly get overlooked.

                
> Is the WTFPL license acceptable
> -------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LEGAL-135
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-135
>             Project: Legal Discuss
>          Issue Type: Question
>            Reporter: David Nalley
>
> Apache CloudStack (incubating) is trying to vet all of the bundled libraries and dependencies. One such
library is jquery.times [1], which is released under the WTFPL [2], which we'd like to continue using. I
suppose that we could perform an end run around this issue and merely re-license the software as that
appears to be explicitly permitted, but that seems a bit squirrely. 
> [1] http://archive.plugins.jquery.com/node/3656/release
> [2] http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/

(Continue reading)

Dennis E. Hamilton (JIRA | 21 May 23:43 2012
Picon

[jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-135) Is the WTFPL license acceptable


    [
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-135?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13280529#comment-13280529
] 

Dennis E. Hamilton commented on LEGAL-135:
------------------------------------------

 <at> Craig,

Yes, I agree.  When someone is wildly cavalier about something, the natural question is, what else are they
cavalier about?

> Is the WTFPL license acceptable
> -------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LEGAL-135
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-135
>             Project: Legal Discuss
>          Issue Type: Question
>            Reporter: David Nalley
>
> Apache CloudStack (incubating) is trying to vet all of the bundled libraries and dependencies. One such
library is jquery.times [1], which is released under the WTFPL [2], which we'd like to continue using. I
suppose that we could perform an end run around this issue and merely re-license the software as that
appears to be explicitly permitted, but that seems a bit squirrely. 
> [1] http://archive.plugins.jquery.com/node/3656/release
> [2] http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/

--
(Continue reading)

David Nalley (JIRA | 23 May 02:42 2012
Picon

[jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-135) Is the WTFPL license acceptable


    [
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-135?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13281335#comment-13281335
] 

David Nalley commented on LEGAL-135:
------------------------------------

Hi folks: 

First my apologies for raising this issue and now it being a non-issue. When I went and posed the questions
Sam asked to the UI folks they responded saying they were already planning on removing the library in
question (apparently the functionality they use from this library can be acquired via native js
functions) and pointed me to: 

http://bugs.cloudstack.org/browse/CS-15057
http://markmail.org/message/cjh6vgief4gzdwyt

Sorry for the hassle folks 

                
> Is the WTFPL license acceptable
> -------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LEGAL-135
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-135
>             Project: Legal Discuss
>          Issue Type: Question
>            Reporter: David Nalley
>
(Continue reading)


Gmane