Open
Conversation
|
Why not CC0? |
Author
Both licenses seem to do pretty much the same thing, legally speaking. But the CC0 is more widely-used and the WTFPL is more informal (and I think it's funnier). So it's up to a matter of personal preference |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This pull request switches the repo to a license that actually makes sense. Why use the BSD license? There isn't even any "source code" as mentioned in the license, lmao. It's just a README file. Also why the fuck is there a warranty & liability clause? Do you think people are somehow going to blow their computers up by opening a README file? Hahahaha. The PR also adds the copyright notice to the top of the README as a comment.