4 ms·

It would not be an open source license anymore. If you really want to make a moral statement at the cost of your code being unusable by any open source project

by tveita 10y ago

It would not be an open source license anymore. If you really want to make a moral statement at the cost of your code being unusable by any open source project, corporation or other entity that cares about following licenses, you might want to consider just adding the The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil. clause from the JSON license. http://www.json.org/license.html http://www.json.org/license.html edit: I should be clear that, like the response says, this still wouldn't be an open source license, and it would be a pain in the ass for anyone wanting to use it. I'm just saying, at least this clause looks somehat idealistic and not just pure trolling. https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/47028/how-could-we-rewrite-the-no-evil-license-to-make-it-free https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/4702...

current_call 10y ago
The JSON license is not an open source license because it doesn't allow evil people to use it. This is not a joke.
- africajam 10y ago
  Seriously? That's quite interesting. Got some evidence to back that up?
  - Daviey 10y ago
    Yep, there have been many arguments on Debian that it isn't disributable as it isn't compatible with DFSG (Debian Free Software Guidelines). Also, google code hosting removed it as it wasn't Free Software... which was quite ironic given their 'do no evil' stance. The real issue is... few 'bad people' think they are evil, and therefore it is too subjective. Licences are not the place to make silly clauses, if you want the main premise to be respected.
  - captn3m0 10y ago
    That is true. Re-posting what current_call posted above: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons. That is the legal definition to be compliant as per OSI. The JSON license did not fulfill it. However, since then, the JSON spec/schema has been worked out under ECMA 5 standardisation, so you can JSON for all your evil projects now without a worry. [1] JSLint, however, you will need to get a waiver like IBM did.[2] [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3693108 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3693108 [2]: http://dev.hasenj.org/post/3272592502/ibm-and-its-minions http://dev.hasenj.org/post/3272592502/ibm-and-its-minions

by tveita 10y ago

current_call 10y ago

The JSON license is not an open source license because it doesn't allow evil people to use it. This is not a joke.

africajam 10y ago
Seriously? That's quite interesting. Got some evidence to back that up?
- Daviey 10y ago
  Yep, there have been many arguments on Debian that it isn't disributable as it isn't compatible with DFSG (Debian Free Software Guidelines). Also, google code hosting removed it as it wasn't Free Software... which was quite ironic given their 'do no evil' stance. The real issue is... few 'bad people' think they are evil, and therefore it is too subjective. Licences are not the place to make silly clauses, if you want the main premise to be respected.
- captn3m0 10y ago
  That is true. Re-posting what current_call posted above: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons. That is the legal definition to be compliant as per OSI. The JSON license did not fulfill it. However, since then, the JSON spec/schema has been worked out under ECMA 5 standardisation, so you can JSON for all your evil projects now without a worry. [1] JSLint, however, you will need to get a waiver like IBM did.[2] [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3693108 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3693108 [2]: http://dev.hasenj.org/post/3272592502/ibm-and-its-minions http://dev.hasenj.org/post/3272592502/ibm-and-its-minions