Choice of Open Source License

[catull]

WTFPL is anarchic and offensive.

It is your right, dear maintainer, to keep it that way, or to switch to a different one.

However, the current license is a deterrent for me.

Since I take Open Source software development seriously, both as a beneficiary as well as a contributor, I certainly cannot identify with nonchalance.

Please consider alternative license models, such as

• APL - Apache License 2.0
• BSD2 - BSD 2-Clause "Simplified" or "FreeBSD" license
• BSD3 - BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" license
• CDDL - Common Development and Distribution License
• EPL - Eclipse Public License
• GPL - GNU General Public License
• ISC - Internet Systems Consortium
• LGPL - GNU Library or "Lesser" General Public License
• MIT - MIT license
• MPL - Mozilla Public License 2.0

My favourite ones are: BSD 3-clause, BSD 2-clause, APL, MIT, EPL, MIT or ISC.
I would still stick around with *GPL.

CDDL is out, though.

Choose wisely.

[xMase]

I like WTFPL license, why is it offensive for you?

[catull]

Far more important is the "anarchic" part, which deters me.

I cannot associate with anarchic views.
It shows no pride in what you do.

Why does one still invest time and brain-power without caring what happens to/with the software ?
What is the motivation ?

As far as the offensive part is concerned, I'd like to show my appreciation for "profanity" with a scene from the "Big Lebowski": Cuss words

I can deal with it in only one context: no-fuss comedy.
That's where I draw the line.

Had I paid more attention to the license, I would not have contributed.
It is too late now, I have made some contributions, which I will not revoke.

My contributions are small in comparison; the project will carry on, no matter what happens to the license.

One more thing: both AdminLTE and Angular are licensed under MIT.
No obligation there.

[xMase]

the community is divided on this license and a license should not be a reason for division, into the open source world. I think that the admin repo should change the license to MIT and take all community power.

[TwanoO67]

I just read the thread suggested by @catull
And I wasn't aware of the "don't blame me" missing part of this license.

And I'm ok with @xMase this should not be a division reason.

So listening to both of you, I will change licensing to MIT in the next release

[catull]

Thanks to both of you.

I am glad this is issue is treated appropriately.

[gsouf]

https://opensource.org/licenses/Fair