4 ms·

Thanks for the link. I'd not quite understood the nuanced rejection of JSON. That "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil" equates to how... > Legally-c

Thanks for the link. I'd not quite understood the nuanced rejection of JSON. That "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil" equates to how... > Legally-conscious objectors aren’t betraying their own dastardly motivations; they’re refusing to enter into an ambiguous contract. Put differently: they’re not saying, “I’m an evildoer,” they’re saying, “I don’t understand what you want.”

JoshTriplett 6y ago
Right. Among other potential issues, such a license is effectively revocable based on someone declaring some particular action or entity "evil" (which is heavily subjective). A license that included the term "this license may be revoked by the author at any time" would also not be FOSS.
- bitwize 6y ago
  Open source licenses are revocable anyway under U.S. law because they are bare licenses, not contracts.
  - nrr 6y ago
    I'm not sure how to search for this to verify your claim, but I'm intrigued. Do you happen to have a citation to a ruling that you can share?
    - bitwize 6y ago
      This has not been tested in court so far as I know. (Please do not cite Artifex v. Hancom. Special conditions prevailed in that case that do not apply, in general, to all software under a nonexclusive open source license.) Generally speaking, under common law, in order for an agreement to have the force of a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and consideration. Since most people acquire open source through a download, there is no consideration (monetary value) being remitted to the author of the software, and hence the license does not have the force of a contract binding on the author. The license is thus a bare license, and the author has the right to revoke it at any time. Unfortunately that's how contract law works in common-law jurisdictions, and we are in for some nasty surprises once this actually does get tested in court. Civil-law jurisdictions, for example Germany, do not necessarily require consideration in order for a contract to be binding. Open source licenses such as the GPL can be binding contracts in Germany.

JoshTriplett 6y ago

Right. Among other potential issues, such a license is effectively revocable based on someone declaring some particular action or entity "evil" (which is heavily subjective). A license that included the term "this license may be revoked by the author at any time" would also not be FOSS.

bitwize 6y ago
Open source licenses are revocable anyway under U.S. law because they are bare licenses, not contracts.
- nrr 6y ago
  I'm not sure how to search for this to verify your claim, but I'm intrigued. Do you happen to have a citation to a ruling that you can share?
  - bitwize 6y ago
    This has not been tested in court so far as I know. (Please do not cite Artifex v. Hancom. Special conditions prevailed in that case that do not apply, in general, to all software under a nonexclusive open source license.) Generally speaking, under common law, in order for an agreement to have the force of a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and consideration. Since most people acquire open source through a download, there is no consideration (monetary value) being remitted to the author of the software, and hence the license does not have the force of a contract binding on the author. The license is thus a bare license, and the author has the right to revoke it at any time. Unfortunately that's how contract law works in common-law jurisdictions, and we are in for some nasty surprises once this actually does get tested in court. Civil-law jurisdictions, for example Germany, do not necessarily require consideration in order for a contract to be binding. Open source licenses such as the GPL can be binding contracts in Germany.