4 ms·
Why is this better than nothing. Laws already exist to cover illegal things, the rest is just cya or moralizing. Or stupid: For the purpose of exploiting, ha
by version_five 3y ago
Why is this better than nothing. Laws already exist to cover illegal things, the rest is just cya or moralizing. Or stupid:
For the purpose of exploiting, harming or attempting to exploit or harm minors and/or *living beings* in any way;
Does that mean it can't be used for farming, slaughterhouses, pest control, "falcon, I have termites in my house, what do I do? I can't help you, termites are a living being and must not be harmed", bacteria?
- bee_rider 3y ago“minors and/or living beings” is really odd phrasing if you think about it. You can’t harm minors (whether or not they are alive) and you can’t harm living beings (regardless of their age). But it is fine to harm dead adults I guess. Putting aside the obvious “why not just say don’t harm anyone” question, it seems to open up some silly philosophical questions around “do dead people age?” Can we use this tool to generate propaganda against an ancient mummified baby, for example?
- version_five 3y agoThat's one of the pitfalls of writing custom licenses. The standard ones, say Apache 2.0, have had a lot of eyes on them and generally make sense and have a clear intent. I'm sure whoever wrote this version has an intent that's not yet clearly and unambiguously reflected in the writing, and so they risk both looking silly but also people avoiding the license due to too much ambiguity and confusion. Why would any user want to take on the liability of this license when it's not clearly understandable?