4 ms·

Well, the license is a kind of contract, and I think it's technically not incorrect to prohibit execution of created binaries as a condition of the contract. I

• onionisafruit 2y ago
  What I think you’re saying is that even though you don’t need a license to execute the binaries, the copyright license could include a clause saying it doesn’t apply to people who execute the binaries. So when you execute a binary your license to make future copies is revoked, and maybe it retroactively revokes your license for past copies as well. That makes logical sense to me as a fellow non-lawyer. The passive aggressive license doesn’t seem to say it that way, but I won’t demand that a joke license be legally enforceable. Its real purpose is to evoke sensible chuckles, and it seems to be successful.
  • moefh 2y ago
    There's nothing fundamentally different about the "passive-agressive" license compared to other licenses. All software licenses work the same way: - you'd normally be forbidden (by copyright law) to copy the code; - the only thing that allows you to copy the code is the license; - the license has terms that you have to agree to in order to be allowed to copy the code. A license might have terms that are unenforceable (the most extreme example is something like demanding you to give up an unalienable right), that's the domain of contract law. But "you agree to refrain from running the executable" doesn't seem egregious, I doubt it would be unenforceable.