FitVids Library

I don't know whether this license would qualify for inclusion as a GPLv2-compatible license, regardless of how free it may seem at first glance :-/

I think we need input from someone who is more involved in the legal aspects of GPL licensing...

The fitvids module was recently added to the community media starter kits (#1947830: Add FitVids module). I don't follow what's happening in the theming too closely, but when I went to test this change, I found I was missing the library. I first checked #1856762: Revisit and Redefine Drupal's Policy on hosting 3rd party files and/or files that is not strictly GPL to see if any progress was made on just allowing @DerekAhmedzai to add the library to the module. No progress there.

Then I checked #1857042: [jquery_update] 3rd party libraries to see if anything had happened to a module that's been violating the policy since it was created. Nope. No change there.

Finally, I check the whitelist to see if anyone has already requested the library be whitelisted and I find that the approval stalled because the developer used the "Do What the Fuck You Want to Public License".

WTFPL is listed in the list of GPL we link to on http://drupal.org/project/drupalorg_whitelist which is pretty clear that "unless otherwise specified, compatible licenses are compatible with both GPLv2 and GPLv3".

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#WTFPL

Since the WTFPL has no GPL version limitations listed, it is compatible with ALL versions of GPL... unlike the LGPLv3, LGPLv2.1, AGPLv3, ECL2.0, and Freetype licenses.

Of course as I've pointed out in #1901130: Clarify GPL V2 and later-compatible licenses: make a simple table, update terms, consistency-in-docs, that list is pretty meaningless in the context of the Drupal.org Whitelist. Rather than simply following the GNU guidelines, some people insert their own interpretations of license compatibility. While still not corrected, my understanding is developers are currently allowed to include any code with a license that in compatible with GPLv2... not "any of these GPL V2 and later-compatible licenses" as stated.

Now there's a question about licenses that are GPLv2 compatible as well!?!

One feature of the WTFPL allows developers who wants to just give their code away with no strings attached to do that while at the same time making a snarky jab at the people who will inevitably discuss the legality and compatibility issues with any license they select.

There is something wrong with our process when using code that's been given away is this hard.

I agree with you (as the OP of this request) but we need to always air on the side of caution so you don't get 3 years down the road and have someone sue the user of a distribution in production environments for just adding any old licensed library into the mix.

And that, unfortunately, is the reason why licenses like WTFPL are funny, but can be annoying—there is good reason for using MIT, GPLv2, GPLv3, Apache, etc.—they give proper legal protection to the code's original author, future contributors, commercial users, etc. And legal stuff (like licenses) is stupid and stupidly complex, but sadly very necessary in today's world.

This is the reason GNU says:

We do not recommend this license.

:)

they give proper legal protection to the code's original author, future contributors, commercial users, etc.

What you are failing to recognize is that some people are more interested in the copy left aspects of open source than commercial users and by requiring MIT, GPLv2, GPLv3, or an Apache license you are requiring people to place more restrictions on their work than they want to.

Even if you don't like it, respect @davatron5000's right to use WTFPL. The FSF does.

While the FSF doesn't recommend using the WTFPL license, they recognize that it IS legal and GPL compatible.

Approval should have been automatic.

A growing number of people (including me) think there is good reason to use WTFPL as we see volunteers helping to manage a project (like Drupal) spend more time and effort protecting commercial interests at the cost of copy left ideals. While complicated, there are best practices for mixing licenses to achieve a balance of free, open, and commercial. In a world where you can find thousands of mixed license project on GitHub in minutes, the Drupal community comes off like some angry old folks telling the kids to get off our lawn with their new fangled licenses. Back in my day we used GPLv2 and we liked it!

I use the Opa example often, but it's a good one. The Opa project changed their licensing last year and is a great example of a mixed license distribution that uses different licenses to achieve different goals for different parts of what is downloaded as a single package.

I'm not going to make the argument that Drupal needs to move to GPLv3 here. I'll save that for http://groups.drupal.org/legal

The policy is the license must be GPL compatible. WTFPL is GPL compatible, thus the request should be approved regardless of what anyone thinks about the license itself.

AFAICT this is RTBC. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#WTFPL is gpl compatible. What more do we need?

added https://drupal.org/node/2042223