Is it possible to apply retrospective copyright to a work licensed under the WTFPL?

Question

I was considering licensing some code under the WTFPL. I was amused by the text of the license and the FAQ on the site, and felt that the spirit of the license suited the spirit of the code. I showed the license to a friend and he sent me the following response, which I thought was very interesting:

I don't know much about licensing law, so correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't this license become corrupted and be made self defeating if someone re-distributes a piece of software under a modified license which states that "No copies of this program, portions of this program, or programs containing code which resembles the code in this program may be distributed without the express permission of LoopHole Company Ltd. All code contained here-in is the property of LoopHole Company Ltd". The WTFPL license also does not offer any protections to people using anything released under that license. So surely in the above example of the modified license, anyone could be potentially prosecuted by using anything released under the WTFPL.

It seems to me that it would be silly if a court ruled that you could do this, but my friend's point is logically sound. I can't see anything which precludes this in the text and don't know enough about copyright law to see any other protection, so I have declined to license the code in this way for now.

Is anybody aware of protection against this?

Answer 1

IANAL - but I believe as long is it is not a derivative of the new source code - the new license does not affect a derivative of the old source code in any way (basic copyright law).

Answer 2

The protection against "theft" like that is to use a license which doesn't allow it. The WTFPL explicitly allows to do anything with the code - even sell it as it was your own work. That's the whole point: You don't f** care what anyone might do.

If that's not what you want, then WTFPL is not for you. Use GPL or APL or something which doesn't allow to take the code out of the OSS pool.

Answer 3

Presume you use GPL instead. Some company can still (illegally) re-license the code and then come sue you the same way. And you have exactly the same defense. The only real difference is that the FSF might join the legal case if you use the GPL.

In the GPL case the company would be breaking copyright law when they re-license the code.

In both the GPL and WTFPL the subsequent lawsuit would be without merit, other than the "I've got more money and I'll bankrupt you" type.

IANAL.

Answer 4

You're the original author. If someone takes advantage of your very-permissive license to create something with a much more restrictive license, that's their prerogative. And if they modify the code, then you have no legal right to their modifications.

However, if you continue working on your own code with your own modifications, and one of these derivative owners tries to sue you, too bad for them... as long as you have proof that you were the original author and that their software is a derivative.

So if you can keep some kind of proof that they're the ones who used your code, not the other way around, you're good to go.

Answer 5

This post falls under IANAL (I am not a lawyer) in other words I am not responsible for any consequences of this post.

WTFPL or the Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License, is basically giving it away, it would be the equivalent or even more of putting it in the public domain (the public domain however changes with jurisdiction so this would probably be better).

As for your friends observation, yes you are correct, they would be able to not allow their application to be copied modified etc, but that is their app NOT yours, same code base yes, but the terms of the WTFPL state you have to change the name, which makes it different and so it would be their derivative work (derivative being the change in name and/or code) under those terms, not your work.

Here is a good primer and FAQ on it http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/

Answer 6

It seems to me that if you are worried about modified versions of a program being redistributed under terms which are not substantially similar to the original terms, then you need a license that forbids that -- and that's precisely what copyleft licenses aim to do. So, you may actually want the GPL.

Answer 7

The author of a work (or his employer) automatically owns the copyright for that work. Having a license to use and/or redistribute a work is not the same as owning the copyright.

Normally only the copryight owner gets to chose a license under which the work may be distributed. Yes, the license may be very permissive - even allowing for changes to the license itself like in this case. However, you cannot lose copyright that way. Copyright can only be transferred by a written and signed contract (or by operation of law).

So if some company would take your WTFPL-licensed work, they might be free to slap a "do not redistribute this copy" notice on it. But as they don't own the copyright, they cannot prevent the redistribution of other existing copies without that notice. And since you are still the copyright owner, you also can start distributing copies under new licenses any time you like.

I've based this answer on Chapter 2 of US copyright law, especially § 204. YMMV in other countries. IANAL.