3 ms·
> The original JSON license is the crayon license whose flaws are easiest to understand. It contains the phrase "shall be used for Good, not Evil", which begs t
by NoGravitas 5y ago
> The original JSON license is the crayon license whose flaws are easiest to understand. It contains the phrase "shall be used for Good, not Evil", which begs the question "who decides what's evil?" and opens up any user to a potential lawsuit.
I personally like the FOAF license, which is like the original JSON license, but specifies that "what's evil" is determined by the originator of the project.
- Anon1096 5y agoI would not consider that an open source license, and it's almost no different than a proprietary license.
- rectang 5y agoAgreed. Specifically, that's not compatible with the Open Source Definition section 6. https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd > 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor > The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
- NoGravitas 5y agoIt is not intended to be an open source license. Ethical source licenses in general do not respect "Freedom Zero" of open source.
- ta988 5y agoThis opens the door for the originator to change their mind. So pretty much the opposite of a legal document where it is tried to make things unambiguous (of course there are exceptions and failures to do that)
- NoGravitas 5y agoYes, that's why it's called the FOAF (Fuck Around and Find Out) license. Do you feel lucky?
- rectang 5y agoFOAF != FAFO (Friend Of A Friend) != (Fuck Around Find Out)