The WTFPL is absolutely an open-source license. Whether a license is open-source is determined by its compliance with the OSI definition - *not* through explicit inclusion in the approved licenses. The list of approved licenses exists purely to provide extra assurance.
Forum topic: Poor game
instead of raging around on sites, you could tell that the developers in a civilized manner.
For me, the game is running in singleplayer just fine, but multiplayer is laggy
Forum topic: 32BIT Only
calm down, its working on 64bit here just fine.
I just went ahead and changed it to open source [approval pending]. Source code is there, the WTFPL meets all 10 criteria of the Open Source Definition AND the 4 freedoms of the Free Software Definition.
Fair license doesn't allow warranty, even if it's highly unlikely that someone would put a warranty.
it also require the license to be included with the works, something that WTFPL doesn't require.
it doesn't cover everything that WTFPL does.
"Open source" is a way broader term than what the OSI definition encompasses. If we're to judge by Wikipedia, "Open Source Initiative" is hardly mentioned in the whole page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source
So IMO software under the WTFPL license could clearly be labelled as "open source" or "free software". The OIS did not state that WTFPL was not open source, but only that the license in itself was in their opinion unnecessary, as it does not bring anything that is not covered by the Fair license. I could fork the MIT and name it the "Akien License", it would probably be rejected by the OSI, would that make my work closed source?
i call BS on their rejection reason, quote: `Mr. Michlmayr moved that we reject the WFTPL as redundant to the Fair License. Mr. Tiemann seconded. Passed unanimously.`
in other words, it fit their definition as stated on http://opensource.org/osd but got rejected cause it like another license.