Hi Sam, On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 23:59:23 +0200 Sam Hocevar <sam@hocevar.net> wrote: > > Regardless of any consideration about the license spirit, I read the > > copyright notice (Copyright (C) 2004 Sam Hocevar <sam@hocevar.net>) as > > applying to the license text, not to the licensed work. > > > > See for instance > > http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/t/toilet/toilet_0.2-1/toilet.copyright > > where two separate copyright notices appear, with two different years. > > I interpret them as being one for the toilet program and one for the > > license text. > > Yes, I believe Francesco's understanding of the licence terms are > correct to the extent that they perfectly match my view. Thanks for the clarification, all those years using it wrongly... fortunately the software using it hasn't been released into the public. > Note that anyone unhappy with the terms of the WTFPL because of the > complex wording or for any other reason can relicence the software under > almost any licence of their choice without having to ask for permission. I'm not unhappy with it, I'm unhappy with my understanding ;) -- Ricardo Mones http://people.debian.org/~mones «You should go home.»
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature