Re-licensing remains a horribly confusing term, which is something I complained about. Some people use it to mean substitute the license on your copy with some other license, and then pass copies on under that new license. This appears to be the way the FAQ uses the term. The way you use the term, you seem to think that you can actually do some magic and revoke the author's rights, then impose your conditions on him, and possibly sue him for violating these conditions. That's just bullshit, it doesn't work like that. Unless you know something the rest of the world doesn't.

You keep saying copyright licenses are used to "forfeit" (by which I assume you mean surrender) rights, so as to (exclusively) transfer them from you to someone else. It doesn't work like that. They are used to grant other people rights. They normally do not remove any rights from the author.

And you still maintain your circular definition of copyright, in which authorhood or copyright itself is a right protected by copyright and that through one of the rights protected by copyright (and granted to you by an author's license), you can obtain that right which is copyright (or authorhood). Can you please back any of it up?

Even if your argument regarding copyright is valid (I don't believe all of it is valid), this still does nothing to address the other (numerous) issues I've raised with this particular license.

Like I said before -- use a more appropriate license that still provides the goals you intend.

As a side note -- don't accuse me of not backing up my claims when neither do you... at this point, we're just two guys bickering on a forum.

WTFPL might have its issues and I might agree that it is not a good license; I can also say the GPLs are bad licenses, since they have their problems too.

But let's not go about making unfounded claims as to what you are allowed to do with it.

> don't accuse me of not backing up my claims when neither do you... at this point, we're just two guys bickering on a forum

Since a lot of your claims assume an exclusive transfer of rights (the method of which is not stated in the berne convention), I have already linked to and cited a US Copyright circular to back up my claim that transfer doesn't happen the way you assume it does. I can also cite the same circular and the Berne Convention to find what rights of authors are protected. Your circular understanding of copyrigts and the rights it reserves for the author assumes rights which appear in neither of the two documents (but the text is online, so prove me wrong). I've also pointed out the illogicalness of your definition.

Even so, the onus is on you to back up the claims you made. You started the discussion by making these claims.

But let me cite one more passage. You probably can't tell where it is from since you haven't read the text. Go do so already.

Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work [..]

So unless you're making an argument about Somalia (in which case you can forget copyright altogether), please drop the bullshit about claiming others' things as your own and then suing the real author. I mean sure, you can try... just as you can try to take the car of someone who released his software under WTFPL. "Because the license said I can!" won't hold up.

So... what's your point? You have discussed copyright to death -- but failed to address a single other point Alupis brought up regarding the WTFPL. Others (below) have even commented that several of the complaints are very valid. Nor have you actually sited any sources other than putting some text in italics.

Sub-licensing is different from transferring copyright ownership. They are both clear and well understood things, what do you mean by re-licence?