6 ms·

The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil

29 points by bootload 16y ago

bootload 16y ago
"... When I put the reference implementation onto the website, I needed to put a software license on it. I looked up all the licenses that are available, and there were a lot of them. I decided the one I liked the best was the MIT license, which was a notice that you would put on your source, and it would say: "you're allowed to use this for any purpose you want, just leave the notice in the source, and don't sue me." I love that license, it's really good. ... So I added one more line to my license, which was: "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil." ..." I was using JSMin (py) today ~ http://www.crockford.com/javascript/jsmin.html http://www.crockford.com/javascript/jsmin.html wondering why there was no installer and poking around I found this article. Seems the addition of additional line in the MIT license gives lawyers headaches.
- davidw 16y ago
  Not just lawyers - anyone sensible. It's not open source any more - you can't restrict what open source is used for - and extremely vague. DIY licenses are a bad idea. In this day and age you should probably pick between MIT, Apache, LGPL and GPL, and maybe something like the Affero GPL for open source, in order of how much they limit people using your code.
  - bootload 16y ago
    doesn't stop the code being used in google android though ~ http://google.com/codesearch?q=%22The%20Software%20shall%20be%20used%20for%20Good%2C%20not%20Evil.%22 http://google.com/codesearch?q=%22The%20Software%20shall%20b... in "git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/external/webkit.git› V8Binding› v8› tools› jsmin.py" for example using this license ~ http://google.com/codesearch/p?hl=en#N6Qhr5kJSgQ/V8Binding/v8/LICENSE http://google.com/codesearch/p?hl=en#N6Qhr5kJSgQ/V8Binding/v...
    - davidw 16y ago
      Maybe they just figured it's unenforceable BS and went ahead anyway.
shin_lao 16y ago
I'd love to send Douglas a copy of Beyond Good and Evil. http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Good-Evil-Friedrich-Nietzsche/dp/1453640207/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278572208&sr=8-3 http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Good-Evil-Friedrich-Nietzsche/d...
- igravious 16y ago
  This software may only be used for purposes that are beyond good and evil. Nietzsche: spiritual progenitor of the free software movement.
simonw 16y ago
The problem here is simple: there is no legal definition of good and evil, which means that the final decision on whether or not you can use the software belongs to Douglas Crockford, the maintainer. If one person can arbitrarily decide whether or not you can use a piece of software, it's not Open Source.
- philwelch 16y ago
  I'm not sure that's how the license would be enforced, in practice. There's no automatic right for any party to dictate the meaning of undefined or unclear terms.
  - arethuza 16y ago
    Isn't that one of the reasons we have courts (or depending where you are, other forms of dispute resolution: mediation, arbitration etc.).
  - rmc 16y ago
    Yes, perhaps it's up to a judge to decide what "good"/"evil" means, however that still means there's 1 person who gets to decide whether or not you can use the software, ergo, not open source.
- mseebach 16y ago
  > If one person can arbitrarily decide whether or not you can use a piece of software, it's not Open Source. It might be, but it's not free software.
- JoeAltmaier 16y ago
  RedHat Legal was quoted; they mention that Good Guys won't use it for Evil, and Bad Guys will ignore the license; so it ends up perfectly unambiguous and enforceable. No issue.
guelo 16y ago
I don't see how the license is not free. The loophole is it does not state who's definition of evil applies. Therefore you can state that your software is not evil and be done with it. If Mr Crockford decides to sue you you will have a very easy defense.
- dantheman 16y ago
  yeah, this same loophole can be used to determine who's definition of: "use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense" etc ... in other words, if we allow people to arbitrarily decide what a word means in a license then the license means nothing..
  - hugh3 16y ago
    The difference being that judges are entirely happy to make precedent-setting rulings on what "use, copy, modify" et cetera mean. I don't think any judge would be willing to rule on whether a particular use of the software counts as "evil". Even if they're presented with a case where someone is using the software in an unambiguously evil way (like, I dunno, kidnapping small children to use as sex slaves) then they probably still won't rule on that, because that creates a precedent that a judge can rule on whether something is good or evil, creating difficult situations for future judges.
aneth 16y ago
A policy against vague restrictions in an open-source license seems sensible to me. I appreciate Crockford's humor, and also that he freely offers exceptions to the clause, since in end, it's silliness.
yock 16y ago
The last thing free software needs is yet another dogmatic argument. Being cute in your licensing damages the perception of free software because you're essentially broadcasting the fact that you don't care how the rest of the world works.
- JoeAltmaier 16y ago
  Hm. So the existing licenses are the Holy Scripture, and we should all bow down to them? Write any software you like, but it has to have the Blessing from Stallman? This is rediculous.
  - yock 16y ago
    No, not at all. Licenses change all the time, both for the better and for the worse. It isn't change that I'm challenging, but rather this particular change. I challenge anyone to defend the language that is the subject of this news item, using clear, concise, and unambiguous language defending the terms "good" and "evil" without offering your own definition. It cannot be done because it requires a value judgment on the part of the reader, and not all readers will share the same value judgment. Simply put, "good" and "evil" mean different things to different people. Therefore, they cannot be used as terms in a legal agreement without clear definitions as to their meaning. Google has chosen, rightfully so, to simply prohibit the language rather than debate their meaning.
    - JoeAltmaier 16y ago
      And ironically, this is the same Google that is sworn to do no evil. I guess its clear they pay lip service to it only.
    - JoeAltmaier 16y ago
      As mentioned elsewhere in this topic, so have all the other terms in the license have slippery meanings. In fact Good and Evil are extremes of behavior. The words are intended to indicate obvious things. As the Justice said "you know it when you see it".
joe_bleau 16y ago
Oh, I've seen something like this with a book (http://www.amazon.com/Front-Panel-Designing-Software-Interfaces/dp/0879305282 http://www.amazon.com/Front-Panel-Designing-Software-Interfa...) before: "It is the authors preference that his book not be used by the military or the munitions industry."
- hugh3 16y ago
  At least that is specific. I've also used several pieces of (European) software which forbid themselves from being used for the creation of nuclear weapons.
  - ptomato 16y ago
    iTunes EULA has a clause stating that you're not allowed to use it for “development, design, manufacture or production of missiles, or nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.”
po 16y ago
The problem is that evil doesn't care about your license.
- JoeAltmaier 16y ago
  No, that's the solution from a legal standpoint. The license is not longer vague.
ptomato 16y ago
I'm not sure complete humorlessness is actually necessary to be an advocate of Free Software(or whatever the trendy term is these days), but there certainly seems to be a high degree of correlation.

29 points by bootload 16y ago

"... When I put the reference implementation onto the website, I needed to put a software license on it. I looked up all the licenses that are available, and there were a lot of them. I decided the one I liked the best was the MIT license, which was a notice that you would put on your source, and it would say: "you're allowed to use this for any purpose you want, just leave the notice in the source, and don't sue me." I love that license, it's really good. ... So I added one more line to my license, which was: "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil." ..." I was using JSMin (py) today ~ http://www.crockford.com/javascript/jsmin.html http://www.crockford.com/javascript/jsmin.html wondering why there was no installer and poking around I found this article. Seems the addition of additional line in the MIT license gives lawyers headaches.

davidw 16y ago
Not just lawyers - anyone sensible. It's not open source any more - you can't restrict what open source is used for - and extremely vague. DIY licenses are a bad idea. In this day and age you should probably pick between MIT, Apache, LGPL and GPL, and maybe something like the Affero GPL for open source, in order of how much they limit people using your code.
- bootload 16y ago
  doesn't stop the code being used in google android though ~ http://google.com/codesearch?q=%22The%20Software%20shall%20be%20used%20for%20Good%2C%20not%20Evil.%22 http://google.com/codesearch?q=%22The%20Software%20shall%20b... in "git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/external/webkit.git› V8Binding› v8› tools› jsmin.py" for example using this license ~ http://google.com/codesearch/p?hl=en#N6Qhr5kJSgQ/V8Binding/v8/LICENSE http://google.com/codesearch/p?hl=en#N6Qhr5kJSgQ/V8Binding/v...
  - davidw 16y ago
    Maybe they just figured it's unenforceable BS and went ahead anyway.

shin_lao 16y ago

I'd love to send Douglas a copy of Beyond Good and Evil. http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Good-Evil-Friedrich-Nietzsche/dp/1453640207/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278572208&sr=8-3 http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Good-Evil-Friedrich-Nietzsche/d...

igravious 16y ago
This software may only be used for purposes that are beyond good and evil. Nietzsche: spiritual progenitor of the free software movement.

simonw 16y ago

The problem here is simple: there is no legal definition of good and evil, which means that the final decision on whether or not you can use the software belongs to Douglas Crockford, the maintainer. If one person can arbitrarily decide whether or not you can use a piece of software, it's not Open Source.

philwelch 16y ago
I'm not sure that's how the license would be enforced, in practice. There's no automatic right for any party to dictate the meaning of undefined or unclear terms.
- arethuza 16y ago
  Isn't that one of the reasons we have courts (or depending where you are, other forms of dispute resolution: mediation, arbitration etc.).
- rmc 16y ago
  Yes, perhaps it's up to a judge to decide what "good"/"evil" means, however that still means there's 1 person who gets to decide whether or not you can use the software, ergo, not open source.
mseebach 16y ago
> If one person can arbitrarily decide whether or not you can use a piece of software, it's not Open Source. It might be, but it's not free software.
JoeAltmaier 16y ago
RedHat Legal was quoted; they mention that Good Guys won't use it for Evil, and Bad Guys will ignore the license; so it ends up perfectly unambiguous and enforceable. No issue.

guelo 16y ago

I don't see how the license is not free. The loophole is it does not state who's definition of evil applies. Therefore you can state that your software is not evil and be done with it. If Mr Crockford decides to sue you you will have a very easy defense.

dantheman 16y ago
yeah, this same loophole can be used to determine who's definition of: "use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense" etc ... in other words, if we allow people to arbitrarily decide what a word means in a license then the license means nothing..
- hugh3 16y ago
  The difference being that judges are entirely happy to make precedent-setting rulings on what "use, copy, modify" et cetera mean. I don't think any judge would be willing to rule on whether a particular use of the software counts as "evil". Even if they're presented with a case where someone is using the software in an unambiguously evil way (like, I dunno, kidnapping small children to use as sex slaves) then they probably still won't rule on that, because that creates a precedent that a judge can rule on whether something is good or evil, creating difficult situations for future judges.

aneth 16y ago

A policy against vague restrictions in an open-source license seems sensible to me. I appreciate Crockford's humor, and also that he freely offers exceptions to the clause, since in end, it's silliness.

yock 16y ago

The last thing free software needs is yet another dogmatic argument. Being cute in your licensing damages the perception of free software because you're essentially broadcasting the fact that you don't care how the rest of the world works.

JoeAltmaier 16y ago
Hm. So the existing licenses are the Holy Scripture, and we should all bow down to them? Write any software you like, but it has to have the Blessing from Stallman? This is rediculous.
- yock 16y ago
  No, not at all. Licenses change all the time, both for the better and for the worse. It isn't change that I'm challenging, but rather this particular change. I challenge anyone to defend the language that is the subject of this news item, using clear, concise, and unambiguous language defending the terms "good" and "evil" without offering your own definition. It cannot be done because it requires a value judgment on the part of the reader, and not all readers will share the same value judgment. Simply put, "good" and "evil" mean different things to different people. Therefore, they cannot be used as terms in a legal agreement without clear definitions as to their meaning. Google has chosen, rightfully so, to simply prohibit the language rather than debate their meaning.
  - JoeAltmaier 16y ago
    And ironically, this is the same Google that is sworn to do no evil. I guess its clear they pay lip service to it only.
  - JoeAltmaier 16y ago
    As mentioned elsewhere in this topic, so have all the other terms in the license have slippery meanings. In fact Good and Evil are extremes of behavior. The words are intended to indicate obvious things. As the Justice said "you know it when you see it".

joe_bleau 16y ago

Oh, I've seen something like this with a book (http://www.amazon.com/Front-Panel-Designing-Software-Interfaces/dp/0879305282 http://www.amazon.com/Front-Panel-Designing-Software-Interfa...) before: "It is the authors preference that his book not be used by the military or the munitions industry."

hugh3 16y ago
At least that is specific. I've also used several pieces of (European) software which forbid themselves from being used for the creation of nuclear weapons.
- ptomato 16y ago
  iTunes EULA has a clause stating that you're not allowed to use it for “development, design, manufacture or production of missiles, or nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.”

po 16y ago

The problem is that evil doesn't care about your license.

JoeAltmaier 16y ago
No, that's the solution from a legal standpoint. The license is not longer vague.

ptomato 16y ago

I'm not sure complete humorlessness is actually necessary to be an advocate of Free Software(or whatever the trendy term is these days), but there certainly seems to be a high degree of correlation.