4 ms·
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
by 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 agoAnd 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 agoAs 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".
- yock 16y agoThe other terms in the license have the benefit of long-standing, generally accepted legal definitions. I don't think you're going to find definitions for "good" or "evil" in Black's.