4 ms·

Pretty funny right?

by bouk 5y ago

Pretty funny right?

eurasiantiger 5y ago
Not in the slightest, but I guess that’s your kick.
akiselev 5y ago
Has anyone ever tested in court whether a license has to be made in good faith to be binding?
- jkaplowitz 5y ago
  Well, if it isn't binding, then there's no right to reuse it (beyond certain fair use exceptions) under the copyright law that applies by default. For me the question is whether the misleading blog post would be found by a court to be an implicit license separate from the one in the codebase. My guess is that it would depend on several factors including the specific circumstances of the accused infringer and the specifics of contract/copyright law in the relevant jurisdiction, but probably at least sometimes yes.
  - nextaccountic 5y ago
    TIL something can be implicitly licensed. Well the term is implied license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_license
- Vinnl 5y ago
  An open source licence generally only gives additional rights. If it's not binding, then default copyright would apply, meaning you're still not allowed to use it.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
jamesjansson 5y ago
No, don't screw around with people legally. It makes you look dishonest.
- icedchai 5y ago
  How is he screwing around with anyone legally? Has anyone been sued over this? Most of this stuff is unenforceable in any meaningful way. Worst case is really some nasty emails.
- tptacek 5y ago
  He does not look dishonest. He looks like the hero we all deserve. Dial it back a bit, would you?
- mdoms 5y ago
  I think his satire is excellent. Look at how these silly licenses are simultaneously taken very serious and frankly not taken seriously at all. I think he has proven something really quite interesting, and in a pretty amusing way.
QuadmasterXLII 5y ago
I found it really funny!
concordDance 5y ago
Yes, I had a chortle, particularly at the reactions in this thread. :D Though I'm an anarchist who thinks people give the law as written far too much weight. (As opposed to what the population as a whole thinks is good or bad)
- hack-news 5y ago
  No one gives a fuck what you think, dimwit.
bryik 5y ago
Not really. The JSLint license is funny because objecting to the "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil." requirement looks like an admission of malintent. Doubly funny that it compelled IBM to ask for explicit permission to use JSLint for evil. Your project, on the other hand, just looks like it was designed to waste people's time. Congrats I guess?
nhutton1 5y ago
I think so. There is also second-order funnyness from all of the very serious nerds who don't find it funny at all. I'm loving it ahah!
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
nextaccountic 5y ago
I mean you trolled a lot of devs and they are now salty over this silly thing and uhmm I think it's my poor sense of humor but I don't usually find practical jokes that funny.

Pretty funny right?

by bouk 5y ago

Pretty funny right?

eurasiantiger 5y ago

Not in the slightest, but I guess that’s your kick.

akiselev 5y ago

Has anyone ever tested in court whether a license has to be made in good faith to be binding?

jkaplowitz 5y ago
Well, if it isn't binding, then there's no right to reuse it (beyond certain fair use exceptions) under the copyright law that applies by default. For me the question is whether the misleading blog post would be found by a court to be an implicit license separate from the one in the codebase. My guess is that it would depend on several factors including the specific circumstances of the accused infringer and the specifics of contract/copyright law in the relevant jurisdiction, but probably at least sometimes yes.
- nextaccountic 5y ago
  TIL something can be implicitly licensed. Well the term is implied license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_license
Vinnl 5y ago
An open source licence generally only gives additional rights. If it's not binding, then default copyright would apply, meaning you're still not allowed to use it.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

jamesjansson 5y ago

No, don't screw around with people legally. It makes you look dishonest.

icedchai 5y ago
How is he screwing around with anyone legally? Has anyone been sued over this? Most of this stuff is unenforceable in any meaningful way. Worst case is really some nasty emails.
tptacek 5y ago
He does not look dishonest. He looks like the hero we all deserve. Dial it back a bit, would you?
mdoms 5y ago
I think his satire is excellent. Look at how these silly licenses are simultaneously taken very serious and frankly not taken seriously at all. I think he has proven something really quite interesting, and in a pretty amusing way.

QuadmasterXLII 5y ago

I found it really funny!

concordDance 5y ago

Yes, I had a chortle, particularly at the reactions in this thread. :D Though I'm an anarchist who thinks people give the law as written far too much weight. (As opposed to what the population as a whole thinks is good or bad)

hack-news 5y ago
No one gives a fuck what you think, dimwit.

bryik 5y ago

Not really. The JSLint license is funny because objecting to the "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil." requirement looks like an admission of malintent. Doubly funny that it compelled IBM to ask for explicit permission to use JSLint for evil. Your project, on the other hand, just looks like it was designed to waste people's time. Congrats I guess?

nhutton1 5y ago

I think so. There is also second-order funnyness from all of the very serious nerds who don't find it funny at all. I'm loving it ahah!

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

nextaccountic 5y ago

I mean you trolled a lot of devs and they are now salty over this silly thing and uhmm I think it's my poor sense of humor but I don't usually find practical jokes that funny.