Talk:WTFPL/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2

GPL compatibility?

This is probably GPL-compatible, but should we mention that? Zarel 03:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Horizontal with CC Zero and downstream with all licenses, but in some jurisdictions you cant waive copyright, (as far as i understand copyright). So maybe better to ask an expert before we put it on the article. Mion (talk) 15:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability Consensus

Seems like the consensus among editors of this article is leaning towards notable............... Fafnir665 (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This shouldn't be so hard. In order to be notable, an article's sources must satisfy the notability criteria. In order words, "an article's subject is notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial published works by multiple separate sources that are independent of that subject itself." (User:Uncle_G) Between the time that I added a notability warning to this article and now, no sources have been added that satisfy these criteria. Specifically:
  1. An email is not reliable, since it does not have editorial integrity.
  2. The homepage is obviously not independent of the subject.
  3. Instances of software projects using this license cannot establish notability since this would constitute original research.
No sources remain, so how is this article notable? --Beefyt (talk) 06:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Instances of software projects using this license cannot establish notability since this would constitute original research. ? please clarify that part, similar to wikipedia these organizations spent a lot of time on copyright. Mion (talk) 06:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
The first notability criterion is significant coverage, which states that sources must "address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content." Referencing or mentioning a license is not case of a directly addressing in detail. In order to satisfy this criterion, a source would have to actually discuss the license, its history, its uses, and so on. I'll give you an example. Let's say I wanted to create a Wikipedia article for cream of mushroom soup, and as sources I was planning on referencing any of the thousands of recipes that use it as an ingredient. Well, unfortunately, the claim that my article is notable because cream of mushroom soup is used in cooking so frequently is itself an act of original research. Instead, I would have to find a source that said something to that effect. As a Wikipedia editor, you cannot "extract the content" as the criterion states, you have to find a secondary source which has made that claim first. That is exactly what is missing in this article. --Beefyt (talk) 06:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
and that is were common sense comes in, where our regulation is preventing us to write articles about factual issues it shouldn't be applied, as our goal is to make an encyclopedia with all knowledge. Mion (talk) 07:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
The fact remains that this article is dangerously close to violating the indisputable policy of original research. If WTFPL had been used in a notable case, such as a instance of OSS that itself was notable like OpenOffice or Firefox, then you might have a case that it itself is notable without a secondary source to back you up. However, the only evidence of WTFPL's use a few non-notable projects, including one by the same author of WTFPL. To make the leap to notability, in this case, is difficult to support without relying on original research. All I ask is you provide a source of notability instead of declaring so yourself. --Beefyt (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Notable content, this isn't "Inclusivepedia" This won't include my auto-biography, that doesn't make any sense. Noone wants to read about how I got shot in the face with potato gun, finished high school, and am studying computational math at some state university. Is that interesting to you? I strongly agree this license is notable though. First widely known extremely permissive license. Hell, they include an article for every single episode of lost. I doubt that every single episode counts as notable, but they're still here. The notable guidelines require a significant amount of subjectivity, but they strive to make it an objective process, hence the whole AfD argument thing.Fafnir665 (talk) 15:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Can you present a reliable, independent source which directly address WTFPL in detail? In other words, can you cite a source that says "WTFPL is widely known"? You simply cannot make that claim yourself, because it is original research. --Beefyt (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
It follows WP:V, if that is what you mean, and PERL programmers use it [1], "CC Zero is widely known" had 0 Google results, if I follow you, it should mean that i can't write an article about CC Zero. As for the reliable, independent source which directly addresses WTFPL in detail? See the debian link in the article, Copyright notices are always part of the package in the world of software. Mion (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
The listserv email is a primary source, not a secondary source, so we cannot establish notability from it alone. If I we had it your way, anything published in any listserv would be notable. To claim notability from a primary source is original research since it required interpretation. Second, the email is not reliable, since its author is not a known source. Who is Nick Moffitt, and what makes him reliable? Third, just because someone significant supposedly commented on its validity doesn't make it notable. --Beefyt (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I propose that we ask the expertise on copyright from commons, i'll upload the X Window images to commons to start the discussion. agreed ? Mion (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't really understand what you mean... do you intend to establish notability from a screenshot? --Beefyt (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
No, i ment to say, that commons seems to have a WTFPL, (dunno, why the interwiki link isn't working, it doesn't show the image, by uploading the x window images it talks easier, in the mean time while i'm talking at commons, could you round up references where it states that Debian is an unreliable source ? thanks Mion (talk) 18:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
The email on Debian's listserv is not reliable, as I already stated, and the new Debian reference you added does not mention WTFPL so it is not relevant to the notability issue. What other Debian references do you have? --Beefyt (talk) 19:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Why are you so fixated on the email? There are other sources from Debian that have been discussed, here and on the AfD. Fafnir665 (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I only see two Debian references in the current state of the article. Other sources on this talk page or the AfD pages are immaterial. They actually have to be somewhere in the article in order to qualify as a reference. --Beefyt (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Nobody is saying that "Debian is an unreliable source". The point is that the mere existence of software in Debian with the license is not an establishment of notability, because it's trivial, and nobody from Debian has discussed the license in a non-trivial manner other than to inquire about its compliance with the DFSG, which was in an email (which isn't a reliable source). If a tree falls in the forest then unless a reliable secondary source says that it makes a sound, Wikipedia can't rely on it. The same applies for anything else which isn't reliably sourced. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Author is Debian Project Lead. (talk) 01:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion

I propose that we nominate this article for deletion unless notability can be established, under the policies of notability, within a day. Any objections? --Beefyt (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a WP:VAGUEWAVE too Drake P. 01:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
What happens if that AfD folds again with no consensus? Will you pop up a week later and suggest AfDing it again, until this all achieves the right answer? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I certainly appreciate your criticism, but I believe the second AfD was conducted in bad faith. Of the four keeps, the first was WP:GOOGLEHITS and failed to establish WP:N as pointed out by User:Thumperward; the second WP:PERNOM; the third suggested using WP:N was WP:GAME while failing to establish notability; and the fourth was a WP:VAGUEWAVE. None of these keeps went so far as to point to a reliable secondary source to establish notability. I understand that the editors in favor of keeping the article intend to establish notability, and I encourage them to do so as quickly as possible, but if this notability cannot be established soon then the article should be deleted beacuse articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future. WP:NOTAGAIN suggests an article can be renominated for deletion as many times as necessary, given that we allow enough time for editors to improve the quality of the article after the first AfD. However, this article was first nominated for deletion over 20 months ago. In that time, the editors have not improved the quality of the article to sufficiently establish notability. --Beefyt (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
The correct avenue for improperly-closed AfDs is WP:DRV. Please take it there. I agree that the outcome was unsatisfactory given the quality of arguments. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Good point. I have left a message for User:Stifle, the admin who closed the 2nd AfD. --Beefyt (talk) 18:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Added Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_September_25#WTFPL. --Beefyt (talk) 18:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Opposed, i believe the second AFD was correctly closed, just like the first AFD discusion, no new arguments against the article turned up since the last AFD. Mion (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Can't be done so soon anyways under AfD guidelines. Drake P. 01:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Stifle He says "No matter how I read the debate there's no way I can justify a deletion closure for this one." Never seen this much intensity on such a minor article. Also, someone fixed the article up in the last 8 hours................ Drake P. 01:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources as references

The following references are simply examples of the license in the wild. As these instances are not covered by secondary sources, their inclusion constitutes original research and should be removed.

  • Reference 1. Primary source.
  • Reference 2. Primary source.
  • Reference 4. Primary source.
  • Reference 6. Duplicate of reference 4.
  • Reference 7. Automatically-generated, and a primary source.
  • Reference 8. Primary source.
  • Reference 9. Primary source.
  • Reference 10. Primary source.
  • Reference 11. Primary source.

In addition, reference 3 is of only vague usefulness (Sam Hocevar's status as DPL is of only tangential interest to this article, and the reference does not mention the license).

These should be removed and replaced with reliable secondary sources, if such things exist. Reference 3, while not reliable, at least discusses the subject in a secondary sense.

I also suggest that because these references are the only things sourcing the "examples" section that this section be removed as OR.

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I, don't think so, after 2 AFD's and the Wikipedia:DRV#WTFPL, I propose Wikipedia:Disruptive editing to illustrate a point as a solution .Mion (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
The DRV suggested that I make an attempt to improve the article. This is a suggested course of improvement. It doesn't matter how many AfDs the article has gone through if it fails to improve and still fails to assert its notability through secondary sources. If there's no productive counterargument then policy will eventually prevail and the article will be merged or deleted. I suggest that you read our policy on original research and reliable sources and base any counterargument on them rather than the supposed character of your opponents. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Disruptive editing : "Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors". To be more specific. Mion (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you should read what WP:TE says instead of wikilawyering with me over the spirit of a rule with which I am perfectly familiar. Raising an issue on the talk page without edit warring is exactly the opposite of tendicious editing, whereas immediately reverting changes one disagrees with in order to add back original research is rather closer to it. Consider this a warning for continually refusing to assume good faith in light of reasonable action on my behalf. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


Deleted the notability tag because the fruit that put it up obviously isn't aware how seriously some of us take software licenses. Fafnir665 (talk) 04:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Restored. Not every software license is notable. And lay off the personal attacks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Notability is subjective, the page you referenced does not have clear objective guidelines that show exactly when something becomes notable. Deleted notability tag in line with notability guidelines. Fafnir665 (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
See, and Fafnir665 (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
A subject becomes notable when it has reliable, secondary sources which reference it directly. You've missed the point with the links you've posted. I've give you a day or so to find some reliable sources which discuss the subject before proposing it for deletion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Whats not reliable about freshmeat? One of the largest source code repositories for at least the last ten years? Already in the article, quit grasping at straws, and lay off the ad hominem —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fafnir665 (talkcontribs) 23:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Freshmeat's content is both user-generated, and from primary sources. You can't point to a bunch of software licensed under the WTFPL to back up any statements about the WTFPL; you have to point at a secondary source which makes them. Go and read policy instead of templating me. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't matter in the context of Notable. Look, you like to throw around links and presume your understanding of them, but what you link is inappropriate in context. There are examples and statements in each that go beyond the simple binary judgment you seem to be passing one this article. Merging this into a general license article, fine. Deletion? Unnecessary. Fafnir665 (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
If Freshmeat's content is from primary sources as Mr. Cunningham states, then Freshmeat would seem to qualify as a valid secondary source and it's obviously notable itself since it had a Wikipedia article of its own. (talk) 16:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Just because Freshmeat is notable doesn't mean everything in its index is notable. Freshmeat should not even be considered a source at all since it does not offer synthetic or analytic claims and it is not reviewed for verifiability. It's just a database. --Beefyt (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Please revert renaming and go back to WTFPL

User talk:VIGNERON has just made an undiscussed rename to the full expansion of the acronym. I would like to see this reverted (I think it needs an admin's mop to avoid breaking history, as it involves redirects):

  • It's known as "WTFPL" not "Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License" or even "What The Fuck Public License"
  • Some of us are in the corporate space. "Fuck" in a URL rattles the cages of firewalls etc.
  • This was undiscussed, when a significant rename like that ought to have been agreed first.
  • Where did that "Do" come from? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Seconded! --Beefyt (talk) 16:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, on the french Wikipedia we always expand the acronyms. For the Do, it’s come from the article, ask Sam Hocevar for further details. Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 13:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Public Domain?

Isn't that actually the same as releasing work into the public domain? -- (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

From the FAQ page:

Isn’t this license basically public domain?

There is no such thing as “putting a work in the public domain”, you America-centered, Commonwealth-biased individual. Public domain varies with the jurisdictions, and it is in some places debatable whether someone who has not been dead for the last seventy years is entitled to put his own work in the public domain.

[2] (talk) 09:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
A counterexemple : SQLite is dedicated to the public domain.[3] (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The author or authors of this code dedicate any and all copyright interest in this code to the public domain. We make this dedication for the benefit of the public at large and to the detriment of our heirs and successors. We intend this dedication to be an overt act of relinquishment in perpetuity of all present and future rights to this code under copyright law.

"WTFPL and Copyleft" section POV and OR

This section smells strongly of original research and point-of-view. I agree with Lilyu's edit that this section should be removed, but since another editor recently restored the section I added an OR warning instead of simply deleting it again. I think Lilyu's assessment that this section is correct: the sources only talk about Copyleft, not WTFPL, so any application of these sources to WTFPL fall under POV and OR. Please, either fix this immediately or remove the section. --beefyt (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm the original author of this section. Where is the WP:OR? Is it in the description of copyleft, the implications of copyleft vs non-copyleft (both of which are referenced by detailed articles from GNU), or in the categorization of WTFPL as non-copyleft (which is trivial)? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
The problem isn't so much that it's original research, but rather that the question of copyleft is only tangentially related to the WTFPL. At most, the article should have "Copyleft" in its "See Also" section. --Zarel (talk) 00:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I would see copyleft as crucial to WTFPL (in the sense of WP:N). WTFPL isn't hugely notable (two AfDs already) and in itself it's little more than a joke licence. Its encyclopedic importance is that it's an exemplar of what the "most open" licence would be, and why this is actually such a bad thing to use in practice: "freedom to do anything" includes the freedom to stop other people doing things in the future. That's the situation that copyleft was invented to deal with. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Not really - there are plenty of "most open" licenses out there that the stuff about copyleft would also apply to -- MIT license, some of the less restrictive forms of the BSD license, CC0... In fact, OpenBSD is developed by a bunch of anti-copyleft zealots. ;) WTFPL's encyclopedic importance is that it's a fairly well-known license. Sure, it's (one of many licenses, all of which are) not copyleft, but it's also not a cheeseburger, and that doesn't get its own section. ;) --Zarel (talk) 04:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Whilst those permissive licences are very similar to WTFPL in terms of what they permit, they do (at least the major ones I'm familiar with) still require ongoing preservation of that licence notice, in contrast to WTFPL.
Nor is the noble lolrus a cheeseburger, but it would be difficult to describe one fully without mentioning cheeseburgers. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

This is just another version of the long-standing BSD/permissive vs. GPL/copyleft debate. Whether one is better than the other depends on your view of what "better" means. One person's WTFPL "difficulty" or "risk" is another person's benefit or gain. That debate doesn't need to be carried on in every software licensing article. Delete the section and keep the debate at Free software licence where it belongs. RossPatterson (talk) 04:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That's why we need to put forward both sides. "WTFPL is really, really free" is too simplistic, as it looks too much like "WTFPL is full of only good stuff". Andy Dingley (talk) 09:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Have just come across this article by random and yes I agree the "copyleft" paragraph is Original Research and is also biased. It reads as if you are trying to convince the reader not to use WTFPL. The article should be written in a neutral tone. Copyleft licencing isn't actually relevent to this article unless you can provide a source that WTFPL was created or intended in some way to have a relationship with copyleft. Due to the vast array of other licences out there, I suspect WTFPL was created with full knowledge of the copyleft situation and they wanted to avoid imposing such restrictions on their own software. WTFPL could even be seen as mocking the complicated licences, such as copyleft ones, that are out there. But this is my own opinion and does not belong in the article. (talk) 23:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

i've read it, i agree with the removal--Lilyu (talk) 07:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Software licenses on Wikipedia

In surveying list of FSF approved software licences, list of software licenses, and comparison of free software licences, I found a host of articles which do not appear at face value to be as notable as some editors (myself included) expect WTFPL to be. For example: Academic Free License, Cryptix General License, Eiffel Forum License, ISC licence. I think if WTFPL were to be deleted, then these articles should also be deleted for similar reasons. So, I propose this article be kept because practice suggests that notability requirements are relaxed for software licenses. It should, however, be cleaned up extensively to improve quality to the levels of the other software license articles. Also, it appears that the FSF no longer approves of WTFPL. Can someone double-check this? --Beefyt (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Lol maybe they saw all the referrals from here =P Drake P. 21:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We most certainly do not "relax" our standards for notability when it comes to software licenses; the proliferation of trivial licenses suggests that they should all be merged into something like list of free software licenses, rather than that people should have free reign to create new articles on whichever random licenses they please. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. There already are several software license lists. What would need to be done to start rolling the separate articles into one massive list or set of lists? --Beefyt (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I reverted the last edit, reason, opposing argument 23 to illustrate a point, if you still think its a valid argument, bring it in on Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_September_25#WTFPL. Cheers Mion (talk) 06:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The DRV is closed now, so I have undone your reversion. --Beefyt (talk) 23:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Just start editing. It may be prudent to hold off (or work on a sandbox version) until such point as the DRV is closed, though, what with the continual assumption of bad faith being bandied around right now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I find it silly how WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is used these days. The second paragraph begins: "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent". This user is trying to make the encyclopedia consistent, and I don't see anything wrong with that. Zarel (talkc) 20:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
The WTFPL is still listed on On what observation was your statement based? Cheers, Sam Hocevar (talk) 12:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


The link for the version 1.0 license was dead and was not archived, I updaded it.

There was a template of the 1.0 license but was deleted (G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page), I don't know exactly wikipedia policies but I think it should be recreated and added to the article. It would be better and also the french and spanish articles show both of them. What do you think?Cainamarques (talk) 06:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Filter 225 - "Vandalism in all caps"

If an admin is reading this, could you please do something about that all-caps filter? I've been trying to edit the article to include the latest version increment of the WTFPL license but it rejects the edit. The filter log cites filter 255, "Vandalism in all caps." I looked through filter log for this page and found a ton of seemingly good-faith edits being blocked by that same filter.

Because the WTFPL license contains ALL CAPS text, that filter basically makes it so we can't make any edits to the page that pertain to the license text itself. I filed a false positive report several days ago but have yet to get a response. The backlog on the false positives page seems to go back for weeks. I tried registering an account and repeating the edits tonight but with no luck.

I don't know how long this filter has been blocking edits to this page, but I do know that v3 of the license has been out since 2010 (according to the copyright text, at least) but this article still doesn't mentioning anything beyond v2. I didn't look at all the diffs but I wouldn't be surprised if I weren't the first person to try unsuccessfully to update the license version in this article.

I'm still pretty new to Wikipedia editing so I have no idea how to get an admin's attention to rectify this somehow. I'm not just talking about my edit; I'm talking about that filter making it prohibitively difficult to properly maintain this article. Whoever wrote this filter evidently didn't realize that some articles are SUPPOSED to have all caps text in them. I think that filter needs to be tweaked. At very least, this article should be whitelisted from that filter so that it doesn't keep throwing false positives like this.Por1h0s (talk) 11:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Software: Citation Needed

Does this answer on stack overflow qualify as a citation of sofware under WTFPL? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Rarely used?

What is the source for WTFPL being rarely used, for me it seems like WTFPL is one of the must common licenses? (talk) 01:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I did a scan of all the packages in ubuntu we had at work, and found about 150 with WTFPL. That's out of 30,000+ packages available (or is that 50K+, I forget). I think that qualifies as "rarely used" (although I'm not the one who wrote that in the wiki page). I also expect that number to go down as some companies have decided that WTFPL is not a license their lawyers are comfortable with being valid in the US, and they have been asking the license owners to relicense under something else 2601:647:4F00:7B00:A634:D9FF:FEA2:90D1 (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The word rare isn't used in the article as of today, but it would be justified (example). –Be..anyone 💩 04:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


Please explain why this licence is only a SOFTWARE licence. As far as I can see, it works for anything. Atleast me and some of my friends using it to licence artwork, document templates or even tweets.

If this is not only a software licence, please change the first sentence and maybe others to clearify that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that too. So I was WP:BOLD and removed that word there. — (talk) 04:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Effectiveness as license or waiver

Resolved: The section has been removed as of 7 July 2016. Michael Reed (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The section Effectiveness as license or waiver was identified as original research. Additionally it's off topic, not one of the references in this section addresses the WTFPL. It's perfectly possible that the WTFPL is ineffective, but this is an encyclopedia, it needs reliable 3rd party sources, not off topic speculations with "could". Suggestion: Remove the section. Criticism is welcome, but it must exist somewhere outside of enwiki to be added to enwiki. Be..anyone (talk) 06:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I added the original research tag to this section and I would agree with removal. @Marcmerlinw: Pinging because this was also discussed on your user talk page. -- intgr [talk] 09:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I tried to save the original conteibution be refomulation. While I agree that the current section is OR it is valid and notable topic which was duscussed outside enWP. I will try to find suitable sources. Cheers Shaddim (talk) 10:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
^.^b There's no deadline. –Be..anyone (talk) 06:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @Intgr:. When I read that section, I indeed found that the references given were quite helpful in understanding the point being made, even if said resources do not explicitly list all the licenses they could apply to (obviously not known to those who wrote said resources), the amount of references made the paragraph useful to me and definitely much more than just some person's opinion with nothing to back it up. When you say "agree with removal", you mean "of the tag", or "of the whole section written there" ? Marcmerlinw (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Marcmerlinw: I would agree with the removal of the section. -- intgr [talk] 10:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Unnecessary specificity

I don’t understand why the article includes this line: Specifically, the WTFPL does not disclaim warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose, nor does it expressly disclaim liability for unintended damage caused by the software. If the license does not include a disclaimer, what’s the point of listing what types of disclaimer it doesn’t include? We already said it doesn’t have any. — (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'm unsure why it's included too; maybe its inclusion would seem more sound to a lawyer. Regardless, I didn't find it in the citation, so perhaps it should be removed. Michael Reed (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Done. — (talk) 20:03, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, it is quite easy to understand why "Specifically, the WTFPL does not disclaim warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose, nor does it expressly disclaim liability for unintended damage caused by the software" was included, it explained the scope and gave more details of an complex legal concept. Especially, it allowed to Wikilinks to specific sub concepts (like merchantability) which could have helped the reader understanding the overall concept. This chance is now lost, with this bare minimum version. Shaddim (talk) 23:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree with most of what you're saying, but it doesn't address the fact that the claim was not mentioned in the source (hence the failed verification tag). Then again, my analysis of the source was hasty, so I could have missed the claim.
To be clear, I'd probably welcome the re-inclusion of such a claim, provided it's properly cited. Michael Reed (talk) 23:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, the sourcing was the main problem (as it often is on Wikipedia). The cited FAQ did not go into any sort of detail about what kind of disclaimer was not included, but the relevant part of the MIT license is cited, so I would think that should be sufficient for contrast if it’s necessary at all. Also, I’m not sure what you mean by “it explained the scope”; the scope was any disclaimers of any kind, since the license includes none. The FAQ does say that the license is meant to be all-purpose and not just for software, so I’m not convinced the standard software disclaimer concepts are even relevant here. But if it can be reliably sourced, go for it. — (talk) 00:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Overlong lead

Per the title, the lead is a tad bit long. The main issue I have is the presence of this clause: "making it the 19th most used FOSS license." Is that really important enough to be in the lead? I don't see why its position on a list is important when the article already just mentioned that <1% of projects use the license. Michael Reed (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

well, I agree let's move that to reception, more details should be in the specialized chapters. cheersShaddim (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I must say that I see no point whatsoever in any mention of the rank of a fraction of a percent, unless we’re trying to illustrate just how little diversity exists in the field, which I don’t think is what we want. Statistics like these would best be reported as MIT, GPL, Apache, BSD, maybe LGPL, and Other (16%). — (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
So, is there any point in mentioning this bottom rank? What are we trying to say with it? — (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand your problem with it. What tells us 1% ? What tells us 19th rank? Both are hard to grasp alone... together they the reader at least some idea where to position the WTFPL in the spectrum of licenses. Shaddim (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@Shaddim: Assuming you mean “what does _____ tell us”:
  • A fraction of a percentage tells us that barely anyone uses it, relatively speaking.
  • An arbitrary rank lower than 5 or 10, out of an unspecified number so that we don’t know how far up or down the list it actually is, tells us literally nothing.
  • Both data points taken together tell us that there are far fewer than nineteen widely used FOSS licenses, which seems off-topic unless we have reason to discuss FOSS culture and licensing in general in an article about one license in particular.
Which of these is the intended message here? — (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Such interesting room for interpretations, as presented, should be given to the reader, not the editors. And especially, we should not limit the readers from valid interpretations by limiting the facts on arbitrary cutting points. Shaddim (talk) 05:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

──────────── @Shaddim: The cutting point doesn't seem arbitrary to me. My understanding is this: the lower the popularity of a license (that is, in the context of all available licenses), the less important the rank of the license relative to other licenses (e.g., 19th for WTFPL, 1st for MIT). Take a marathon, for example, where there are 10,000 runners, but only 3 medals to give out. The difference between 1st and 2nd is significant, as is the difference between 2nd and 3rd. But once you get to the difference between the 19th and the 20th, the difference is of much less relevance. In other words, it may be interesting that the WTFPL ranks as the 19th most popular license, but since the difference between the 19th and the 20th is of little magnitude (relative to the difference between the 1st and 2nd), then the rank doesn't need to be mentioned. Michael Reed (talk) 06:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. If it were in the top ten, there might be an argument for including the rank (but even then, #10 only has 2% share). Past that, the number is pretty meaningless, isn’t it? What value does it add to the article? Yes, it’s a data point, but we don’t include every bit of data indiscriminately. So why include that one? — (talk) 06:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Because it is hard data on popularity, which is recpetion whcih we are encouraged to represent. Feel free to find somethign better, until then we keep the best we have. Shaddim (talk) 15:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
We already have something better: the usage percentage. I ask again, what does the ranking add to that? It’s just a distractingly arbitrary number. Unless I’m mistaken, we wouldn’t say that a book reached #177 on Amazon’s charts or something, and that’s a much more significant rank out of thousands of books than a rank of 19/20; we might say the book made the top 200, but at that point the precise number isn’t worth mentioning. Such is the case here.
I know you disagree. I know you think there’s some reason to include it anyway, to consider it relevant rather than indiscriminate. I just don’t know what that reason is. — (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)