3 ms·

Probably not a good idea. If you include vaguely-worded restrictions like that in your license you're 1) using a non-standard license, and 2) breaking Freedom 0

Probably not a good idea. If you include vaguely-worded restrictions like that in your license you're 1) using a non-standard license, and 2) breaking Freedom 0 of GNU's Free Software Definition. Personally I feel that it'd be better to put that sort of statement in the README; especially if you're not concerned with whether its legally-enforceable or not.

amelius 9y ago
> Personally I feel that it'd be better to put that sort of statement in the README; especially if you're not concerned with whether its legally-enforceable or not. You're probably right. And the README would be better, because the message would be visible on the main page in Github :) Another option could be to have the text "The following is not part of the license, but expresses the wishes of the author regarding use of this software ..." in the LICENSE file. I'm hoping we could have a standard phrasing for this kind of thing (just like we have standard licenses). Perhaps the EFF could develop one.
- throwanem 9y ago
  Perhaps then EFF can develop a way of giving companies that might use these libraries a reason to care that this language is present. "The following is not part of the license" is just a long-winded way of saying "Feel free to ignore what follows this clause even harder than you feel free to ignore what precedes it." I mean, full marks for cooperative nature, but being real here, the licenses in your Github repositories mean exactly as much as you're willing to pay a lawyer to enforce them, assuming you even find out they're being violated in the first place. It would be nice if the world were otherwise, but pretending that is so doesn't seem to me likely to help much of anything. Perhaps I am wrong in so thinking.
  - amelius 9y ago
    The law departments of these companies probably couldn't care less, I agree. But I think such license addendum could have a very significant impact. These companies employ people who generally have a warm heart for open source. These people have been contributing to open source projects themselves. So if part of the community starts disapproving their way of doing business, they will take note. And internal discussions will take place. Further, if these companies misbehave, it hurts their image. And a bad image among developers (both internal and external) is probably the last thing these companies want.

amelius 9y ago

> Personally I feel that it'd be better to put that sort of statement in the README; especially if you're not concerned with whether its legally-enforceable or not. You're probably right. And the README would be better, because the message would be visible on the main page in Github :) Another option could be to have the text "The following is not part of the license, but expresses the wishes of the author regarding use of this software ..." in the LICENSE file. I'm hoping we could have a standard phrasing for this kind of thing (just like we have standard licenses). Perhaps the EFF could develop one.

throwanem 9y ago
Perhaps then EFF can develop a way of giving companies that might use these libraries a reason to care that this language is present. "The following is not part of the license" is just a long-winded way of saying "Feel free to ignore what follows this clause even harder than you feel free to ignore what precedes it." I mean, full marks for cooperative nature, but being real here, the licenses in your Github repositories mean exactly as much as you're willing to pay a lawyer to enforce them, assuming you even find out they're being violated in the first place. It would be nice if the world were otherwise, but pretending that is so doesn't seem to me likely to help much of anything. Perhaps I am wrong in so thinking.
- amelius 9y ago
  The law departments of these companies probably couldn't care less, I agree. But I think such license addendum could have a very significant impact. These companies employ people who generally have a warm heart for open source. These people have been contributing to open source projects themselves. So if part of the community starts disapproving their way of doing business, they will take note. And internal discussions will take place. Further, if these companies misbehave, it hurts their image. And a bad image among developers (both internal and external) is probably the last thing these companies want.