4 ms·

License reads: > "Copyright Bouke van der Bijl I do not give anyone permissions to use this tool for any purpose. Don't use it. I’m not interested in changin

License reads: > "Copyright Bouke van der Bijl I do not give anyone permissions to use this tool for any purpose. Don't use it. I’m not interested in changing this license. Please don’t ask. " Used by counter on GitHub is at 464. The way it's worded would imply that they are all violating the license? How can this be enforced for inconsequential small pet projects? Is this really something to worry about, particularly with what (seems to me) to be a sort-of spurious license?

oaiey 5y ago
Yes. You take something you do not own (even down the tree). You have to check if you are allowed to. It does not matter if it is a small pet project or the Linux Kernel. Sure you can ignore him and wait for him to lawyer up and make your life miserable. Considering that IT specialists which have capacity to contribute to open source are typically not poor or have idealogical interests, I would not take the bets. Respect the wishes of the people you take code from. License checking is like code coverage. If you are a professional you take care of it.
- concordDance 5y ago
  > You have to check if you are allowed to. It does not matter if it is a small pet project or the Linux Kernel. Actually it does matter and you don't have to. In practice pet projects are basically never going to be sued, it's simply not worth it. As a side note, a lot of techy people struggle to separate the law as written with the law as practiced. The ethics question is more interesting, but for something like this which is clearly satirical? No harm, no foul.
  - oaiey 5y ago
    The "pet project" was the dependency in my example which license would be violated. The contextual author does not care for sure. But generally it is an ethical problem like you said but also a practical one. Once you stack enough pet (or should I say lpad) projects together something bigger comes out. And the liability is hidden three layers down the dependency tree.
bscphil 5y ago
> Used by counter on GitHub is at 464. The way it's worded would imply that they are all violating the license? Yes. My read of the situation is not that it's a license that intends to stop people from using it, but rather that it's a license that selects for a specific target audience that doesn't care about copyrights or is anti-copyright. In my opinion, that's a perfectly valid audience to select for, although a license that specifically prohibited any licensee from ever filing a lawsuit over a copyright claim or sending a DMCA takedown might be a funnier way to accomplish it.
- Filligree 5y ago
  I’m anti-copyright. I still wouldn’t use this code, because I don’t want to break the law. Being anti-copyright doesn’t mean you also need to be against due process.
  - JasonFruit 5y ago
    Being willing to break the law doesn't mean you're against due process. Due process is what happens afterwards, that safeguards you from being punished for doing something you have not done.

oaiey 5y ago

Yes. You take something you do not own (even down the tree). You have to check if you are allowed to. It does not matter if it is a small pet project or the Linux Kernel. Sure you can ignore him and wait for him to lawyer up and make your life miserable. Considering that IT specialists which have capacity to contribute to open source are typically not poor or have idealogical interests, I would not take the bets. Respect the wishes of the people you take code from. License checking is like code coverage. If you are a professional you take care of it.

concordDance 5y ago
> You have to check if you are allowed to. It does not matter if it is a small pet project or the Linux Kernel. Actually it does matter and you don't have to. In practice pet projects are basically never going to be sued, it's simply not worth it. As a side note, a lot of techy people struggle to separate the law as written with the law as practiced. The ethics question is more interesting, but for something like this which is clearly satirical? No harm, no foul.
- oaiey 5y ago
  The "pet project" was the dependency in my example which license would be violated. The contextual author does not care for sure. But generally it is an ethical problem like you said but also a practical one. Once you stack enough pet (or should I say lpad) projects together something bigger comes out. And the liability is hidden three layers down the dependency tree.

bscphil 5y ago

> Used by counter on GitHub is at 464. The way it's worded would imply that they are all violating the license? Yes. My read of the situation is not that it's a license that intends to stop people from using it, but rather that it's a license that selects for a specific target audience that doesn't care about copyrights or is anti-copyright. In my opinion, that's a perfectly valid audience to select for, although a license that specifically prohibited any licensee from ever filing a lawsuit over a copyright claim or sending a DMCA takedown might be a funnier way to accomplish it.

Filligree 5y ago
I’m anti-copyright. I still wouldn’t use this code, because I don’t want to break the law. Being anti-copyright doesn’t mean you also need to be against due process.
- JasonFruit 5y ago
  Being willing to break the law doesn't mean you're against due process. Due process is what happens afterwards, that safeguards you from being punished for doing something you have not done.