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.
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.