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.
yeah i agree at some point, I understand that it is not closed but if we use the term open source we should follow OSIs list. so we could either add another tag eg: other or we need to rename open source to something that covers all those licenses(afaik there there doesn't exist such a term eg: free software is used by the FSF but they also reject other licenses that are appoved by the OSI(see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_softwar... )
I also find the term "free software" confusing an the OSI has a clear defination, which will avoid such discussions under every single game with an unknown or not yet covered license
I agree, especially since the WTFPL is even considered FSF-free and GPL-compatible. It's not the best license out their, but can't be considered closed source. OSI rejected the license because they believe it's too similar to public domain dedication - public domain is still free though.
Even still, isn't calling it open source much more accurate than calling it closed source?