The main dev made the last commit, so they dont have the right to make another commit, until they arent the last person to make a commit anymore (until someone else has made a commit). This makes sure that there are at least 2 people making commits but hopefully much more.

In other words, making a commit revokes your right to do so until someone else makes a commit.

the fact that there are this many people having different interpretations shows that the license would need waaaaaay clearer wording to hold any sort of water.

this is why i hate licenses like WTFPL and its ilk, just saying "do whatever" cannot possibly be legally viable and thus using anything with such a license is impossible by anyone who cares about copyright law (such as say, companies).

If you want your creations to be free for all to use, just slap a fat CC0 on it.

Yeah, the problem with the proposition is that you have all rights and access to the code regardless of who made the last commit, unless the last person to commit revoked the HPL.

1. The bot is not a person and this cannot have the rights
2. Just don't use something as fancy as that. CI for a HLP project? Wth are you doing, there aren't even tests

ha! You've got to do it now! Im free!

I would 100% use this HPL-v2 for all of my (temporary) foss projects. It's just genius. I mean, good luck keeping track of the current owner, Nintendo lawyers.

Them dusters always complaining about something smh

What should I say??

Luckily for you, there's a version 2!

Just writing words doesn't make it legally binding. Anyone who reads this comment owes me $1,000,000 USD.

I think this is a sort of anti-license, so I think the sort of people who use it reject copyright law.

If you want to fork the repo then you make a commit to the original repo giving yourself rights then you make the fork and you’re golden.