Here's something interesting: The "Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License"

It's perfectly valid too--
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL
sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/
" Isn’t this license basically public domain?

There is no such thing as “putting a work in the public domain”, you America-centered, Commonwealth-biased individual. Public domain varies with the jurisdictions, and it is in some places debatable whether someone who has not been dead for the last seventy years is entitled to put his own work in the public domain. "

" Can’t you change the wording? It’s inappropriate / childish / not corporate-compliant.

What the fuck is not clear in “DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO”? If you do not like the license terms, just relicense the work under another license. "

Also, the Uncyclopedia NoLicense uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Template ...

"I am content releasing my work completely to the public without conservative, territorial, and possessive need to claim some sort of stake in it. I do not need thousands of cleverly written loophole-"some rights reserved" licenses, nor do I need to debate about the superiority of any of them, rather, I toss the entire equation out the window and render it effectively useless. ..."

Maybe it's ok for those who don't know what they want and what license to choose. But I won't license with it more than a rock.

"Every major Linux distribution (Debian, Red Hat, Gentoo, SuSE, Mandrake, etc.) ships software licensed under the WTFPL, version 1 or 2. Bradley Kuhn (executive director of the Free Software Foundation) was quoted saying that the FSF’s folks agree the WTFPL is a valid free software license."