5 ms·
Any lawyers want to comment on this? My guess is that it's unenforceable because you can't bind someone with a contract by sneak attack. But it's funny.
by autarch 6y ago
Any lawyers want to comment on this? My guess is that it's unenforceable because you can't bind someone with a contract by sneak attack.
But it's funny.
- troyjfarrell 6y agoIt is funny. But it is also counterproductive. The Spite Software License theoretically makes your code useful only to people who don't care about licenses. But if the source code is published, it's already useful to those people. For those who make the effort to be responsible and respect licenses, the source code is useless. So Spite is probably a very good name for this. edit: clarity
- gpm 6y agoNot a lawyer. I suspect it's not enforceable as a contract, but that it is a valid revocation of the license. That is to say you could still use the project within the bounds of what you can do without a license, but not do anything that copyright law restricts (e.g. reproduce the copyrighted material).
- user5994461 6y agoAlmost certain it's void in civil law (Europe) for many reasons. Being deceptive is one. See the concept of dolus malus in Latin https://thehftguy.com/2020/09/08/what-every-developer-should-know-about-civil-law-and-software-subscriptions/ https://thehftguy.com/2020/09/08/what-every-developer-should... The clause about not being read is a problem. A contract is assumed to be read. What to do with a clause saying it's not read? And the clause is the main point of the contract? The whole thing is basically nonsense for lack of a better word. I can't imagine a court attempting to interpret the contract to enforce it. The title says it all "a joke software licence", they've succeeded at what they were trying to do.