3 ms·
Take a look at the original json.org license and all the problems that the "not for evil" clause they added to it had caused. Ultimately though, if you put a n
by mixologic 10mo ago
Take a look at the original json.org license and all the problems that the "not for evil" clause they added to it had caused.
Ultimately though, if you put a non free license on your libraries, somebody will cry foul, fork it, and evil will still happen.
- fooqux 10mo agoWell then you just use some copyleft language to ensure the same license (or something you deem compatible) is used. Just because you can fork something doesn't always mean you're able to just change the license.
- dontdoxxme 10mo agoSome background in https://gist.github.com/kemitchell/fdc179d60dc88f0c9b76e5d38fe47076 https://gist.github.com/kemitchell/fdc179d60dc88f0c9b76e5d38... Basically you end up with something not legally enforceable. And will someone actually doing evil care about your license?
- PunchyHamster 10mo agoThey would if they could get sued. But it's unlikely, so they won't. Best cure is to use GPL, any evil company would not be able to handle *having* to give back anything to project they used /s
- pabs3 10mo agoGPL mandates giving forward to users, not giving back to the project. It is also commonly violated.
- eirikbakke 10mo agoI suspect the non-standard JSON license was in part a strategy to encourage third-party implementations, so that the format would become a standard. (W3C standards, for example, require "multiple independent implementations to proceed along a standardisation path". https://www.w3.org/TR/webdatabase/ https://www.w3.org/TR/webdatabase/ )