5 ms·

You can modify GPL with an additional clause. Kinda like JSON did to the MIT license with their do-not-use-for-evil morality clause. Of course the project then

You can modify GPL with an additional clause. Kinda like JSON did to the MIT license with their do-not-use-for-evil morality clause. Of course the project then will be considered non-free by both FSF and OSI. Ironically installation via Nix if it's put on nixpkgs will then require enabling allowUnfree.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
weinzierl 4y ago
That is true, and to add: If you are not careful with your additional clause you easily violate Debian's Free Software Guidelines (DFSG). The guidelines are used to determine whether your software can be included in Debian. If that is important to you a clause that adds additional restrictions (like green energy use) is out.
jkarni 4y ago
It's if anything better that way. The commitment would have to be one you consciously take on, after all.
inglor 4y ago
I think you might be mixing JSON up with jslint? The famous story is that Crockford gave a license to “IBM and its minions” to use the software for nefarious purposes as a joke when their lawyers asked for an exclusion.
- forgotpwd16 4y ago
  Nope, JSON. See: https://www.json.org/license.html https://www.json.org/license.html. It was first used for the reference Java implementation (initially found in http://www.json.org/java/index.html http://www.json.org/java/index.html; then https://github.com/douglascrockford/JSON-java https://github.com/douglascrockford/JSON-java). JSLint also used this license until few years ago.
hollerith 4y ago
You can modify the GPL with an addition term that requires the use of green energy, but the resulting license is incompatible with the GPL with the result that code under the new license cannot be mixed with or linked with GPLed code. See section 7 ("additional terms") of the GPL: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html (the GPL version 2 also has this property.) Also, its unusual license is probably why jslint is not used much.
- Couto 4y ago
  Used jslint extensively back in the days. The reason why it fell mostly in disuse nowadays is because jshint appeared, which allowed a lot more customization of the available rules being applied. Later eslint popped up with it's plugin engine allowing anyone to have their own custom set of rules. As far as I know, no one cared about jshint's license because there was no code being shipped, and eventually code would be minified anyway leaving no traces of jshint. Now... We can talk about the morality of ignoring a license, but ultimately jshint's license was simply ignored by almost everyone
t0astbread 4y ago
You don't necessarily have to enable `allowUnfree` entirely. There's also `nixpkgs.config.allowUnfreePredicate` which lets you define a predicate that takes a package and decides if it's okay to install.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

weinzierl 4y ago

That is true, and to add: If you are not careful with your additional clause you easily violate Debian's Free Software Guidelines (DFSG). The guidelines are used to determine whether your software can be included in Debian. If that is important to you a clause that adds additional restrictions (like green energy use) is out.

jkarni 4y ago

It's if anything better that way. The commitment would have to be one you consciously take on, after all.

inglor 4y ago

I think you might be mixing JSON up with jslint? The famous story is that Crockford gave a license to “IBM and its minions” to use the software for nefarious purposes as a joke when their lawyers asked for an exclusion.

forgotpwd16 4y ago
Nope, JSON. See: https://www.json.org/license.html https://www.json.org/license.html. It was first used for the reference Java implementation (initially found in http://www.json.org/java/index.html http://www.json.org/java/index.html; then https://github.com/douglascrockford/JSON-java https://github.com/douglascrockford/JSON-java). JSLint also used this license until few years ago.

hollerith 4y ago

You can modify the GPL with an addition term that requires the use of green energy, but the resulting license is incompatible with the GPL with the result that code under the new license cannot be mixed with or linked with GPLed code. See section 7 ("additional terms") of the GPL: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html (the GPL version 2 also has this property.) Also, its unusual license is probably why jslint is not used much.

Couto 4y ago
Used jslint extensively back in the days. The reason why it fell mostly in disuse nowadays is because jshint appeared, which allowed a lot more customization of the available rules being applied. Later eslint popped up with it's plugin engine allowing anyone to have their own custom set of rules. As far as I know, no one cared about jshint's license because there was no code being shipped, and eventually code would be minified anyway leaving no traces of jshint. Now... We can talk about the morality of ignoring a license, but ultimately jshint's license was simply ignored by almost everyone

t0astbread 4y ago

You don't necessarily have to enable `allowUnfree` entirely. There's also `nixpkgs.config.allowUnfreePredicate` which lets you define a predicate that takes a package and decides if it's okay to install.