2 ms·
You are probably right in many respects. But I don't think the objection to the Crockford clause is the worry that he might sue you if you commit genocide. The
by Stratoscope 8y ago
You are probably right in many respects. But I don't think the objection to the Crockford clause is the worry that he might sue you if you commit genocide.
The objection is that it muddies the waters and costs users money for no good reason.
If a clause like this is so inherently unenforceable, then why put it there in the first place? To make a statement? To annoy people? To make your potential users have to pay their lawyers extra money to find out if they agree that it is something you can safely ignore?
A public company can't just rely on your opinion or mine. They have to do at least some due diligence on an issue like this. And that's money they wouldn't have to spend if the author used a standard license.
- paultopia 8y agoThis is all fair and true. I'm mostly just lamenting that the world is that way. We have structured our collective existence so that it is unsafe for people to draw common sense conclusions like "of course nobody can successfully sue you for copyright infringement for a do no evil clause." It's a horrible side effect of our creating horrible giant forms of human activity that require massively bureaucratized forms of organization in order to function. It's necessary, but still tragic.
- Stratoscope 8y agoVery well said, and I share your sorrow.