"I took the above code and put it in an easy to use library" ... [but] "I do not give anyone permissions to use this tool for any purpose. Don't use it."

Sounds strange, until you consider that he only added the "license" 2 years later. I wonder how many questions from various people wanting to use the tool for various purposes he received during this time?

People kept asking for a license so they could use it, so I added a license that clarifies that this is not a project that should be seriously used.

That is a beautiful, if sort of minor, hack. "I need a license because I want to use this at work and they need me to have a license for all code we use." "Here's the license: 'No.'"

It's like the opposite of the WTFPL [1], the FYL.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL

I can imagine the type people looking to actually use this. They are using go for whatever reason but complain about it constantly because they want it to be Ruby on Rails.

People really want to mock out dependencies in go, instead of architecting their application properly

I’m all over using gomock to test my packages in isolation. I’ll just continue to do that with generated mocks instead of trying to monkeypatch a language that isn’t intended for that.

I’m curious about your motivation for writing this. Did it start out as something legitimate and morphed into a joke when you wanted to see how far you can push it? Or were you taking the piss the whole time?

Taking the piss 100%

> I do not give anyone permissions to use this tool for any purpose. Don't use it.

At least "any purpose" should say anything other than personal testing or something. This is silly otherwise. On the other hand at least he's transparent about it.

> This is silly otherwise.

There are many things for which we do not need permission though. I am OK with these words.

The project is meant as one big joke, so yeah don't use it.

Looks like someone made a MIT licensed version of it: https://github.com/undefinedlabs/go-mpatch