9 ms·

Evil, or why Douglas Crockford is harmful to Free Software

159 points by slyall 14y ago

Jach 14y ago
This whole thread is ridiculous. So I'm going to contribute something productive, and give a plug for a sensible JSON replacement, edn: https://github.com/edn-format/edn https://github.com/edn-format/edn
nicholassmith 14y ago
If you don't like his license, don't use it. Drop the packages out of the system, kill PHP and YUI and jQuery and anything else that's decided they're okay with the licensing specifying that it shouldn't be used for evil and taking a slight poke at how restrictive a non-restrictive license can be. In the end the morals survive but the platform suffers. Or approach him and ask him to relicense, or create a derivative or one of the other options. Blog post reads more like the author has a specific problem with Crockford and is doing this in public to try make him seem foolish.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- jasonkester 14y ago
  You chose that word carefully (and even underlined it). Are you sure, eleven minutes later, that you really mean that? You would hate a person who took the time and effort to build a piece of software, then clean up and release the source code for anybody to use? A person who is doing a selflessly good thing that possibly benefits others and at the very least does no harm? You'd hate this person? Not just disagree with or be annoyed by, but hate? Is that really the sort of person you want to be?
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
mibbitier 14y ago
Writing a complete json parser would have taken less time than writing this rant...
yarrel 14y ago
> Before the jokers in the room claim that this kind of problem is deserved by Mono Sizzle.
jasonkester 14y ago
Seems like this could be avoided by simply approaching the author and offering to pay for a version of the software with the license you want. If I'm not mistaken, the author in question has in fact given companies in the past permission to use this particular library for "evil purposes". Most importantly though, one should refrain from making demands on people who are offering you things for free. If you like the code and are willing to use it under the terms provided, use it. Otherwise you're no worse off than you were before. Write your own version and get on with life.
- masklinn 14y ago
  > Seems like this could be avoided by simply approaching the author and offering to pay for a version of the software with the license you want. or taking the JSON grammar and implementing it from scratch. It's not exactly complex, the most complex part is strings and even those are rather simple.
  - Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
    Someone should start an open source project called EvilJSON which reimplements it but flips the good and evil in the licence so you can't use it for good.
    - kamjam 14y ago
      I might do this, think of all those communist countries out there that are unable to use this software due to this stupid clause! :-)
      - gizmo686 14y ago
        I believe you mean all of those capitalist countries out there that are unable to use this software due to this stupid clause.
- zb 14y ago
  Seems like this could be avoided by simply approaching the author and offering to pay for a version of the software with the license you want. That's not an option for Free Software distributions like Debian, so everybody loses except evildoers.
andrewguenther 14y ago
Here is the quote the post refers to from "The JSON Saga": When I put the reference implementation onto the website, I needed to put a software license on it. I looked up all the licenses that are available, and there were a lot of them. I decided the one I liked the best was the MIT license, which was a notice that you would put on your source, and it would say: "you're allowed to use this for any purpose you want, just leave the notice in the source, and don't sue me." I love that license, it's really good. But this was late in 2002, we'd just started the War On Terror, and we were going after the evil-doers with the President, and the Vice-President, and I felt like I need to do my part. [laughter] So I added one more line to my license, which was: "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil." I thought I'd done my job. About once a year I'll get a letter from a crank who says: "I should have a right to use it for evil!" [laughter] "I'm not going to use it until you change your license!" Or they'll write to me and say: "How do I know if it's evil or not? I don't think it's evil, but someone else might think it's evil, so I'm not going to use it." Great, it's working. My license works, I'm stopping the evil doers! Audience member: If you ask for a separate license, can you use it for evil? Douglas: That's an interesting point. Also about once a year, I get a letter from a lawyer, every year a different lawyer, at a company--I don't want to embarrass the company by saying their name, so I'll just say their initials--IBM... [laughter] ...saying that they want to use something I wrote. Because I put this on everything I write, now. They want to use something that I wrote in something that they wrote, and they were pretty sure they weren't going to use it for evil, but they couldn't say for sure about their customers. So could I give them a special license for that? Of course. So I wrote back--this happened literally two weeks ago--"I give permission for IBM, its customers, partners, and minions, to use JSLint for evil." [laughter and applause] And the attorney wrote back and said: "Thanks very much, Douglas!" Good talk, worth a watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-C-JoyNuQJs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-C-JoyNuQJs
- jahewson 14y ago
  It's sad that Crockford thinks that causing this kind of hassle to diligent users of his software is funny. Ha ha, stupid user, you took the legally binding joke which I inserted into a legally binding license seriously, hahah you sooo funny. Yeah, a real barrel of laughs. Never mind that licensing law is a lot less flexible than contract law, in which unreasonable terms are readily removed.
arctangent 14y ago
"Good" and "evil" are relative concepts, not absolutes.
alexjarvis 14y ago
I think that this has probably been taken a little too literally. It would be interesting to get the original author’s opinion.. I agree completely with Sehe’s comment about the terms of the statement not being clearly defined and thus no judge could reasonably use it in court against any uses of the software. Good and Evil are subjective opinions to which each individual has their own beliefs.
- jahewson 14y ago
  There's no such thing as "too literally" in a legally binding contract, which is intended to be used anywhere on the world. All it takes is one open-minded judge. Sure it's 99.9% subjective, but why take a chance? What happens if it's used by a company that openly labels itself as evil? Not so subjective anymore... Crockford's act of granting special licenses to companies who may have evil-doing clients is a strong indicator that the clause is not a joke, that in practice it is taken seriously. A court would take this into account. The real problem with this stupid joke is that it requires a trip to court to invalidate it. Thanks Douglas!
  - alexjarvis 14y ago
    I agree with you wholeheartedly, but you could argue that by granting it to some 'evil' clients, that he is invalidating his statement, proving that it is just a joke, and just laughing at everyone that asks for a special licence. Furthermore, has Douglas any intention to take someone to court over this? I don't know much about him, but I highly doubt it.
  - saraid216 14y ago
    > The real problem with this stupid joke is that it requires a trip to court to invalidate it. I find myself strangely okay with the idea of requiring people to walk into a courtroom and admit that they intend to enact or permit evil.
    - alexjarvis 14y ago
      I would also quite like to see this happen.
markokocic 14y ago
I don't understand. The guy complain that json license is not "Free" in the FSF sense of "Free". So what? Not all licenses has to be FSF or FSF compatible. How is it harmful to FSF is the license of some piece of code is not compatible with GPL? Guess what, I can't use GPL in my projects, because it's not compatible with the kind of license I release my programs. You can't use this software because it's not comapatible with GPL. Feel the pain. FSF would advice people not to use GPL software if they can't stand the license. The same applies to you, if you really want to use your software for evil purpose, just license it that way. Otherwise, use something else. It's that simple.
- lmm 14y ago
  It's a license that's misleadingly almost-free. It's like the old 4-term BSD license with the "obnoxious advertising clause".
  - irahul 14y ago
    > It's a license that's misleadingly almost-free. Like the GPL is misleadingly almost free? As in it's free but if you release software which uses GPL software, it is under GPL? I am not arguing about the meaning of free, I am arguing against your "it's a license that's misleadingly almost free". Just like GPL's terms doesn't make it non-free, "don't use it for evil" doesn't make it non-free. EDIT: I see people arguing about "don't use it for evil" violates "can use it for any purpose" clause. Fine. GPL's clause violates "use it to distribute software without making my whole software GPL."
    - lmm 14y ago
      On the terminology side: language is about communication, and there is a broad consensus on the meaning of "free" in terms of free software, exemplarized by the FSF's defnition, the OSI open source definition, and the DFSG. None of these definitions is identical to the others, and no doubt there are edge cases that would fall under one but not another, but neither the GPL nor Crockford's license is one of them; under this consensus meaning of "free" (which you claim not to be arguing about), the GPL is a free license and Crockford's is not. On the practical side: the GPL is established and popular enough that you should know what you're getting yourself in for with GPL code. In theory I can imagine someone unfamiliar with the free software movement hearing that a piece of GPL code was "free" and assuming that meant they could use it in their closed products, but in practice when people talk about "free" software they tend to either mean the free software definition, or "freeware" (i.e. binaries which can be downloaded without charge) - which generally doesn't permit modification and redistribution. So I don't think this is a practical concern. By contrast Crockford's license is not popular or established. Worse, it looks exceedingly similar to a popular, established license - the MIT license - which is free (in the free software sense). So it's very possible to accidentally download a Crockford-licensed piece of code, thinking that you can use it in a free software project, when in fact the license does not grant all the rights you would need to do this - as is demonstrated by the fact that the author of this post did exactly that. Crockford is free to distribute his code under whatever license he likes, but using a license that looks very much like the MIT license but grants you a much smaller set of rights (a set which puts it on the other side of a line that, while in many ways arbitrary, is of great practical relevance when it comes reusing code in the wider internet community) is not nice.
happywolf 14y ago
My software is for those who put their mugs at the right side of the desks. Wait, which side is right?
jasim 14y ago
The article is in bad taste. The title even more. If you don't like Crockford's license you are at liberty to write that code yourself. Please don't call people who contribute a great deal to advancing computing (Free Software or not) names like 'harmful to Free Software'. Even if there is genuine concern in the license and its usage in Free Software, it should be raised by pointing to the code and the license, not by making a personal attack. Articles like this are harmful to Free Software because it discourages people from contributing. Not Douglas Crockford's license written in good humour and with nice intentions.
- bad_user 14y ago
  People need to be aware that using childish clauses in licenses can have legal repercussions. This is not about "Free Software" or "Open Source" either, because that same clause can get you in trouble even if it comes in the EULA of a proprietary product. The article was itself childish, but then again, it's a personal blog, not some kind of official statement. > it discourages people from contributing True, but my perspective is different - what discourages people from contributing are ego-driven testosterone-filled spoiled brats. Incidentally that's why we also have so few women contributing.
  - jasim 14y ago
    I'm not disagreeing with the message of caution. But it could have been said much better. > True, but my perspective is different - what discourages people from contributing are ego-driven testosterone-filled spoiled brats. Incidentally that's why we also have so few women contributing. Ego and Testosterone in the same sentence - that has to be bad! But it is a different conversation altogether.
    - chris_wot 14y ago
      Contrary to popular belief, neither ego nor testosterone are absent from women.
  - sixbrx 14y ago
    So I guess the projects led by developers that are kind and helpful to a fault, of which there are quite a few in my experience, must have all the women contributers funnelled to them. I haven't seen that that's the case so I'm not so sure about your theory.
scotty79 14y ago
Good and evil are arbitrary concepts that are not formally recognized by courts (am I wrong?) so the phrase in the licence is meaningless. How can anyone be so lawyerised to care about that? Lawyers, licences, copyrights, patents are modern though police. So many people consider every creative action (and unfortunately often abandon it) afraid of what laws they might be potentially braking by executing this action.
- rmc 14y ago
  Good and evil are arbitrary concepts that are not formally recognized by courts (am I wrong?) I'm pretty sure court judgements have use moralistic statements and refered to things like "respect" or "evil", "inhuman". Judges are humans, not compilers. In fact a search of the British court judgements shows many instances of "evil" being referred to in judgements ( http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/sino_search_1.cgi?sort=rank&query=evil&method=boolean&highlight=1&mask_path=/ http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/sino_search_1.cgi?sort=rank&#3... ). It's the legal ambiguity that is the problem.
  - snowwrestler 14y ago
    > Judges are humans, not compilers. This is exactly why I would not worry about it. No judge is going to look at that clause and think it is in any way intended to be enforced. Contrary to popular belief, there is plenty of room for common sense in a courtroom.
rbanffy 14y ago
The author makes a valid point - people should be able to use free software for any purpose and inclusion of this restriction in the license makes it non-free. In this specific case, I'd argue Mono is intrinsically evil and therefore should be prevented from using Crockford's software at all. If Microsoft embeds a Crockford-based JSON parser in their own releases, they are in clear violation of its terms. ;-)
- andyjohnson0 14y ago
  " I'd argue Mono is intrinsically evil" Could you explain why this is? I use Mono and I'm genuinely interested.
  - rbanffy 14y ago
    My concern is that by using Mono you make the .NET runtime more popular and Windows more valuable. Since Microsoft has a long history of hostility towards software freedom (despite several open-source software they publish themselves), I don't think it's wise to further empower them.
  - irahul 14y ago
    >> " I'd argue Mono is intrinsically evil" > Could you explain why this is? I use Mono and I'm genuinely interested. From the op's profile: "I really don't like Microsoft much." Apparently not liking MS much is reason enough to dislike an open source project implementing an interesting runtime and languages, which provides options to use aforementioned runtime and languages without being married to MS.
    - kaolinite 14y ago
      I suspect the reason he dislikes it, as many seem to, is that it's potentially legally unstable as Microsoft own IP related to C# and .net. I don't know the specifics (I don't use Mono myself), but I have heard people talking about possible problems in future if Microsoft changes their mind about encouraging Mono.
thenomad 14y ago
The key issue here seems to be whether the "good not evil" clause is in any way legally enforcible. If it's not, it's a bit of harmless fun. If it is, then potentially anyone using software licensed under the license discussed in the article is in some serious trouble, and the article itself has merit. So, any lawyers around who can give us a definitive answer to that one? Sadly, all the lawyers I know specialise in UK rather than US law.
- jahewson 14y ago
  It's not harmless fun if you have to get lawyers involved. The legal system is not the place for harmless fun, because it often backfires and causes harm. In this case, Crockford has issued special licenses to companies which may do evil, which is a pretty strong indicator that the clause is in fact not a joke. How would one enforce this license against a fictitious "Evil Inc." who self-proclaim "We do Evil", well now that's not subjective anymore? Hmm... ... oh hang on, aren't jokes supposed to be funny?
- tzs 14y ago
  (Not a lawyer, so don't take this as definitive) Generally, ambiguity in a contract goes against the party that wrote the ambiguous clause. I believe that applies both in the US and the UK (and I'd expect nearly anywhere else whose contract law arose out of English common law). Based on that, I'd expect someone trying to enforce a "good, not evil" clause to have a tough time.
noonespecial 14y ago
This non-Free license is intended to mock people who take licensing seriously. It seems to be working. (Though I might add a "too" in front of seriously). Sometimes ridiculous things need mocking. (And just for the record, I do fully expect future generations to find our preoccupation with "owning" and "licensing" every stray line of text or bar of musical notes to be thoroughly ridiculous.)
- icebraining 14y ago
  As long as violating one without a profit motive can get an individual convicted to pay $1.5 million dollars, there's nothing ridiculous about taking licenses seriously. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas)
  - noonespecial 14y ago
    That's the satire. That's the joke. It's like an insane bit of legal performance art. The fact that you actually do have to take it seriously is the punch line.
scotty79 14y ago
I read that you can't distribute code that has no license. Why can't you do that? Will someone punish you for that if author won't sue anybody? Will his descendants inherit the right to sue distributor?
- hilko 14y ago
  My guess is the latter, but I'd love for a properly informed individual to answer this.
- DougBTX 14y ago
  Code is, generally speaking, copyrighted. Copying something copyrighted without permission is copyright infringement. A license is one way to get permission in writing.
- irahul 14y ago
  > I read that you can't distribute code that has no license. You can. It's just that unless otherwise stated, the owner has the copyright in most legislation. Without the license, if you derive from someone's code, he can sue you stating he never granted you the right to use his work.
- icebraining 14y ago
  IANAL I read that you can't distribute code that has no license. Why can't you do that? Because copyright law says so - it reserves the right to copy to the author. Will someone punish you for that if author won't sue anybody? I believe depends on whether you fall under a criminal or civil violation. http://www.chillingeffects.org/copyright/faq.cgi#QID885 http://www.chillingeffects.org/copyright/faq.cgi#QID885 Will his descendants inherit the right to sue distributor? Yes, it's pretty common for estates (of which the descendants are usually the executors) to sue distributors.
  - scotty79 14y ago
    Mind-bending. Especially condition for violation to be criminal: 1) for commercial advantage or private financial gain or 3) by distributing copyrighted work where the infringer knew or should have known the work was intended for public distribution. Does that also cover non-American authors? And distribution of works of American authors abroad?
opminion 14y ago
Crockford triggered an argument at least as old as the Lutheran reform. The irony is that Crockford's licence is an unintended success in line with Eich's JavaScript itself. JavaScript, as a Lisp in disguise which survived early standardisation, browser wars, Microsoft's JScript, European bureaucracy (the E in ECMA?), Adobe and Crockford's own jslint, is a success at being something very, very useful. Crockford's "Good, not evil" licence, it could be argued, is a free licence only if the definition of good/evil is a personal one. One of the main issues of Luther's reform is that good and evil are a personal choice [1]. Crockford is succeeding at indirectly making people think of who has the right to tag something as good or evil. [1] At least that's what I remember from school.
- ams6110 14y ago
  One of the main issues of Luther's reform is that good and evil are a personal choice I wouldn't say it like that. Luther's main position was that salvation or forgiveness of sin was a personal matter between God and the sinner; that salvation comes directly from God and cannot not be conferred by a priest or church, in exchange for money, etc. and that the Bible itself was the source of divine knowledge, not the church.
runningdogx 14y ago
There is no place for humor or overly subjective terms like "evil" in a software license or other legal document, and the problem with Douglas Crockford's license is that he fails to understand that. That is, unless his intent is to keep every entity with sane lawyers from using his software. I don't think that's his intent. He said he wants to keep people without a sense of humor from using his software, but sane lawyers with a good sense of humor will object to the license just as strongly as sane lawyers with no sense of humor. Venue matters. A lawsuit based on the evil clause of the license, in San Francisco or Los Angeles, would probably go nowhere. However, consider a jury in Birmingham, AL, and whether they would find that using some of Crockford's software in an abortion clinic was a violation of the license.
- jasim 14y ago
  I don't disagree to this premise. Yes, it could be an issue - but Douglas Crockford is not morally obligated to worry about it. His code, his license. When you use it, you accept the risks that come with it. The post could have made a sane argument that the license is ambiguous and should be avoided in Free Software. But it focused on the author and made unjustifiable personal remarks. Not cool. The author also seem to forget that there are advocates of the MIT license who would never use GPL software because of its viral nature. Does that mean Richard Stallman is 'harmful to software'? Criticize the license, but don't name-call the author who has made major positive contributions to the field.
  - jkn 14y ago
    You might as well say that Douglas Crockford is not morally obligated to be nice. Yes, I suppose he is entitled to behaving in ways that are harmful to Free Software, but we are also entitled to criticize him for that. The post criticizes both the license and Crockford's use of the license, focusing on the latter because licenses, like guns, are not harfmul in themselves. You might argue that Crockford's contributions to Free Software outweigh the nuisance of his license, but to people who won't use his code because of the license (as you propose they do if they don't like it), his contributions are, sadly, rather worthless. As for your last point, sure, Richard Stallman is arguably harmful to the Free Non-Copyleft Software movement, if such a thing exists. Is that a bad thing? I don't think there is a consensus in the Free Software community. Some OpenBSD folks certainly hate it...
raganwald 14y ago
Shouldn't this be, Why you should know what you're doing legally before you contribute code to free software? Or perhaps, The system works, notice how we avoided the mistake of including software with an eccentric and non-free license from being included in free software? It takes me back to the frenzy over VLC on iOS. People write code, we need to respect their choices with respect to how they license it, even if their choice is whimsey with a dangerous side of legal morass. This argument sounds dangerously like a tirade because Mr. Crockford did something that did not benefit the free software movement. His software is un-free, just as the GPL is un-free. I'm ok with that, even if my lawyer isn't ok with me using his code.
- bad_user 14y ago
  I agree with your argument, however I don't agree that the GPL is un-free. First of all, there's a clear distinction between the GPL and this modified MIT license - the GPL was written with the help of actual lawyers and it's a solid license that can stand on its own in a court of law. If you think that the GPL gives you certain privileges or takes away some freedoms, then it's actually easy to verify that by simply asking a lawyer. Also, GPL is a license that has restrictions on distribution and not usage. Usage of GPL-software is completely free. Of course, sometimes the usage/distribution boundaries are blurred when you're speaking about platforms, so GPL 3 drew a line in the sand to prevent cases such as Tivo, however to quote Linus Tolvards which represents the other side of the coin in any talks related to GPL [1]: """If you're a mad scientist, you can use GPLv2'd software for your evil plans to take over the world ("Sharks with lasers on their heads!!"), and the GPLv2 just says that you have to give source code back. And that's OK by me. I like sharks with lasers. I just want the mad scientists of the world to pay me back in kind. I made source code available to them, they have to make their changes to it available to me. After that, they can fry me with their shark-mounted lasers all they want.""" This is also not a matter of free / un-free. But rather a mater of legal liability. If somebody can prove that you used the software for "Evil", whatever that may mean, then you're legally liable. So what's evil anyway? Is making money evil? [1] http://www.forbes.com/2006/03/09/torvalds-linux-licensing-cz_dl_0309torvalds1_print.html http://www.forbes.com/2006/03/09/torvalds-linux-licensing-cz...
  - 14y ago
mmahemoff 14y ago
A license like this has two red flags. I previously worked in a programme providing corporate governance of open source. It's a fairly big industry with companies like Black Duck helping companies manage their legal risks, and licenses like this aren't popular. Firstly, it's non-standard. As others have said, it's the author's right to make it non-standard, but I don't recommend people try that unless there's a really good reason to do so. If it's non-standard, a lot of companies simply won't use it. There's no box to check, so you can't have it. Good tracking software will of course allow for exceptions and deltas to the standard contracts, but it still creates delays and management overheads as if it's allowed at all, it will require someone's manual sign-off. This gets worse when you consider the whole chain of software use. One library inside another library that's used by a subcontractor who added it to a build script that's used by the main contractor to distribute to developers. The whole thing needs to be linked through, which is hard enough with standard licenses. Now startups don't need to worry about sign-off from some department, but they still need to stop and inspect the nature of the licenses they're using, and a non-standard license causes extra time and energy lost. The second problem is ambiguity. A non-standard contract can still be precisely written, so developers know what they're getting into. In this case, though, it's not. It hinges around the definition of "evil", which is naturally ambiguous. Comedy goes a long way, but is not always appropriate. This is a good article on the subject: http://www.natpryce.com/articles/000225.html http://www.natpryce.com/articles/000225.html "It may be less amusing to the programmer writing the code but, more importantly, it is less infuriating for the programmer maintaining the code." Think the same applies to licenses.
- thedudemabry 14y ago
  Well said. And while I absolutely agree with several other posters that Crockford has free reign to define the terms of use of his product, he didn't choose the most effective terms for what we all assume is his goal: spreading the use of json. A license is like a piece of code that binds to a system of laws at runtime. Effective license terms, like effective code, work within the problem domain and avoid ambiguity where it is likely to cause problems. His license compiles, but can throw runtime exceptions depending on context.
ivan_ah 14y ago
I disagree. While it //is// unprofessional to joke around with licensing, I think the author of the article (and some of the commenters her) seriously exaggerate the thread of a legal suit. Who will sue? EFF? Crockford? I am no expert in "license law", but I am sure a you-are-using-this-for-evil accusations would not stand a chance.
- Evbn 14y ago
  Crockford's heirs could sue. There is long established precedent of greedy heirs harassing the beneficiaries of their ancestors' largesse.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    Seems like more of a case for copyright reform than the relicensing of a javascript verifier. (Unless we are only interested in putting a bandaid on symptoms I suppose.)
- nine_k 14y ago
  google "frivolous lawsuit". Corporations troll each other in court quite often, in order to bleed the defendant and/or force them to resolve the case off-court, for a sum of money. Using code licensed under such a troll-bait like the "good, not evil" clause while having nice corporate revenue is a big mistake.
klausa 14y ago
>It’s fairly clear that the JSON.org license clause goes against both of these, making any piece of software using that license neither Open Source nor Free Software I'm sorry, is there some definition of Open Source that I'm not aware of?
- andrewcooke 14y ago
  wouldn't they be referring to http://opensource.org/osd http://opensource.org/osd ?
- rmc 14y ago
  There are a few definitions. The FSF has one http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html the OSI has one http://opensource.org/osd-annotated http://opensource.org/osd-annotated Debian has one http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines They are nearly all extactly the same. Another defintion is if the code is released under and OSI approved "open source licence" (http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical ) or an FSF approved "free software licence" ( http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html ). Again AFAIK, nearly exactly the same.
jballanc 14y ago
Sometimes I find the cognitive dissonance in the software community to be as entertaining to watch as that in various religious sects... Software types are famously inclined toward libertarian views. An oft repeated mantra on HN is "let the market decide". Yet, here we have myriad complaints about a decision the market has made. What I particularly love about the Open Source/Free Software world is that it is a market in the truest sense. Barriers to entry are extremely low and, while there aren't necessarily dollars to throw around, consumers vote with their time and attention, both quantities arguably more valuable than currency. It is interesting to watch this market choose benevolent dictatorship models of governance over more democratic rule. It is intriguing to see reinvented wheels succeed for seemingly inconsequential reasons. And, in this case, it is rather informative to observe how expediency wins out, even to the potential detriment of the very consumers who have made this choice. Reimplementing the code in question would require work. Clarifying or requesting a change of licensing terms would require work. Instead, the "market" (many, many OSS projects in this case) has chosen the preexisting solution that contains a potential time bomb. If I didn't know any better, I'd almost say that this article is a veiled call for regulation. It's almost as if the market, left to its own devices, doesn't always make the best long-term decisions when short-term benefit weighs in opposition. The world of Open Source/Free Software really is fascinating to watch...
- skreech 14y ago
  If you see it as a market, this is a typical market failure (externality and / or information assymmetry). Since the author has chosen a non-standard license, I doubt government regulation would help (unless that regulation outlawed non-standard FLOSS licenses). Probably would be better to reduce the information assymmetry. Maybe Github could have warning notifications for custom licenses, for example?
  - jballanc 14y ago
    I've always considered the one thing that Google Code has over Github is the mandatory selection of a standard license when creating a publicly visible project. Also, to the point of regulation, the government is by no means the only vector by which it can be delivered. I think if you look through history, some of the most successful regulatory regimes have been separated from the traditional civil government.
0x0 14y ago
Funnily enough, Apple seems to be OK with this license, as it's shown on all iOS devices inside that long list of acknowledgments/legal inside settings somewhere.
- theorique 14y ago
  Apple doesn't do evil.
  - curiousdannii 14y ago
    That they use the licence makes this undeniable, right? This is the ultimate proof we're after?
pooriaazimi 14y ago
Don't say "Free Software", please. Because you actually mean "FSF-compliant" license. Some people don't give the slightest damn what FSF or any other crazy institution has determined to be a "free" (as in thought/speech) software license. In my humble opinion, a true "free" software license is the kind of license that lets you do "whatever the fuck you want to do" with it - in other words, "public domain". GPL (whatever the version might be), in my opinion, is not a true "free" license because it forbids you to, for example, re-publish the source without attribution or using them without being GPL-compliant or any number of other restrictions. BSD is much better, but still has some restrictions. Even WTFPL[1] is not "free" (as in speech/thought), because it requires you to change the "name" upon re-distribution. So, yes; Douglas Crockford is harmful to "FSF"-kind of "free software", but I think GPL and BSD are also harmful to the more "idealistic" definition of "free software". [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL
- aw3c2 14y ago
  GPL/BSD are "restrictive" to protect the freedom of the software. You cannot have freedom without having a rule for freedom. Free software is not anarchy software.
  - dpark 14y ago
    > You cannot have freedom without having a rule for freedom. Of course you can. Freedom is the lack of restrictions. I think you're confusing freedom with rights, which do indeed need protection. An argument could be made that what the GPL attempts to do is assert a right to the source code which they protect with restrictions to the developer's freedom. (Just as the right to life is protected with restrictions to the freedom to kill.)
    - fmoralesc 14y ago
      > Freedom is the lack of restrictions. That's just the negative sense of freedom. People mean sometimes a different sense of "freedom" , where to be free to do something implies rights, which then implies duties. See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/
RyanMcGreal 14y ago
This article goes to show that no good deed goes unpunished.
- Evbn 14y ago
  Not evil deed.
ams6110 14y ago
So quit whining and write your own json parser.
darrencauthon 14y ago
Programmers.............
tptacek 14y ago
To sum this story up: a programmer wrote a small piece of software that other people want to use and gave it away for free, with an idiosyncratic license. Therefore, sysadmins are entitled to disparage him. This story definitely makes me want to get more involved with organized free software.
damian2000 14y ago
Legal repurcussions? what I'd like to know is how many times has this "do good not evil" phrase in a license actually come up in court or been tested by lawyers? Probably never.
- YokoZar 14y ago
  If it ever actually ends up in court it has had far more than a single repercussion. Mere legal threats, or even the possibility of them, can seriously get in the way of productivity. Yes, it's stupid, and we should all lighten up and be able to laugh about it. We should also be able to laugh at obvious jokes about having weapons at an airport. There are some really unfunny people in this world, and in the meantime we unfortunately have to just deal with it.
kriro 14y ago
If you don't like the license, don't use the software. I think it's fairly ironic that freedom is supposed to undermine freedom. The man has the freedome to write up any license he wants and you have the freedom to not use it. I like the article, it's well written but (once again ironically) it also reads like the typical "the stuff is cool, I really want to use it pleaaaaase change the license" which I typically hear from people complaining about the GPL.
olliesaunders 14y ago
Am I wrong here but isn't all this concern a bit excessive because the only person who can actually sue you for a breach of this license is Crockford.
Kilimanjaro 14y ago
To use Javascript you don't need a license. Javascript object literals are part of Javascript, ergo, you don't need a license. Json, which is the string representation of a javascript object literal for transmission and storage, doesn't need a license either. I can do whatever the fuck I want with JSON and nobody can touch me. Look, I can even use it for EVIL if I want! So sue me.
- Evbn 14y ago
  Json isn't copyrighted. Json parsing libraries are.
tomrod 14y ago
"Son, you will NOT use this software for evil. The LAW won't let ya!" /s Is this _really_ a big deal?
macspoofing 14y ago
This clause was put in there for humour and is completely unenforceable in court, and that's even if someone actually wastes his or her time challenging it. They should get over themselves.
darrenkopp 14y ago
The real sad part is that is likely used by JsonSerializer class which was just kind of a quick hack to quickly add json support to a few things and it has been deprecated in favor of DataContractJsonSerializer. So the only people who are using that are people who started using it really quickly after it was released and haven't updated their code to stop using it.

159 points by slyall 14y ago

Jach 14y ago

This whole thread is ridiculous. So I'm going to contribute something productive, and give a plug for a sensible JSON replacement, edn: https://github.com/edn-format/edn https://github.com/edn-format/edn

nicholassmith 14y ago

If you don't like his license, don't use it. Drop the packages out of the system, kill PHP and YUI and jQuery and anything else that's decided they're okay with the licensing specifying that it shouldn't be used for evil and taking a slight poke at how restrictive a non-restrictive license can be. In the end the morals survive but the platform suffers. Or approach him and ask him to relicense, or create a derivative or one of the other options. Blog post reads more like the author has a specific problem with Crockford and is doing this in public to try make him seem foolish.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

jasonkester 14y ago
You chose that word carefully (and even underlined it). Are you sure, eleven minutes later, that you really mean that? You would hate a person who took the time and effort to build a piece of software, then clean up and release the source code for anybody to use? A person who is doing a selflessly good thing that possibly benefits others and at the very least does no harm? You'd hate this person? Not just disagree with or be annoyed by, but hate? Is that really the sort of person you want to be?
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

mibbitier 14y ago

Writing a complete json parser would have taken less time than writing this rant...

yarrel 14y ago

> Before the jokers in the room claim that this kind of problem is deserved by Mono Sizzle.

jasonkester 14y ago

Seems like this could be avoided by simply approaching the author and offering to pay for a version of the software with the license you want. If I'm not mistaken, the author in question has in fact given companies in the past permission to use this particular library for "evil purposes". Most importantly though, one should refrain from making demands on people who are offering you things for free. If you like the code and are willing to use it under the terms provided, use it. Otherwise you're no worse off than you were before. Write your own version and get on with life.

masklinn 14y ago
> Seems like this could be avoided by simply approaching the author and offering to pay for a version of the software with the license you want. or taking the JSON grammar and implementing it from scratch. It's not exactly complex, the most complex part is strings and even those are rather simple.
- Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
  Someone should start an open source project called EvilJSON which reimplements it but flips the good and evil in the licence so you can't use it for good.
  - kamjam 14y ago
    I might do this, think of all those communist countries out there that are unable to use this software due to this stupid clause! :-)
    - gizmo686 14y ago
      I believe you mean all of those capitalist countries out there that are unable to use this software due to this stupid clause.
zb 14y ago
Seems like this could be avoided by simply approaching the author and offering to pay for a version of the software with the license you want. That's not an option for Free Software distributions like Debian, so everybody loses except evildoers.

andrewguenther 14y ago

Here is the quote the post refers to from "The JSON Saga": When I put the reference implementation onto the website, I needed to put a software license on it. I looked up all the licenses that are available, and there were a lot of them. I decided the one I liked the best was the MIT license, which was a notice that you would put on your source, and it would say: "you're allowed to use this for any purpose you want, just leave the notice in the source, and don't sue me." I love that license, it's really good. But this was late in 2002, we'd just started the War On Terror, and we were going after the evil-doers with the President, and the Vice-President, and I felt like I need to do my part. [laughter] So I added one more line to my license, which was: "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil." I thought I'd done my job. About once a year I'll get a letter from a crank who says: "I should have a right to use it for evil!" [laughter] "I'm not going to use it until you change your license!" Or they'll write to me and say: "How do I know if it's evil or not? I don't think it's evil, but someone else might think it's evil, so I'm not going to use it." Great, it's working. My license works, I'm stopping the evil doers! Audience member: If you ask for a separate license, can you use it for evil? Douglas: That's an interesting point. Also about once a year, I get a letter from a lawyer, every year a different lawyer, at a company--I don't want to embarrass the company by saying their name, so I'll just say their initials--IBM... [laughter] ...saying that they want to use something I wrote. Because I put this on everything I write, now. They want to use something that I wrote in something that they wrote, and they were pretty sure they weren't going to use it for evil, but they couldn't say for sure about their customers. So could I give them a special license for that? Of course. So I wrote back--this happened literally two weeks ago--"I give permission for IBM, its customers, partners, and minions, to use JSLint for evil." [laughter and applause] And the attorney wrote back and said: "Thanks very much, Douglas!" Good talk, worth a watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-C-JoyNuQJs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-C-JoyNuQJs

jahewson 14y ago
It's sad that Crockford thinks that causing this kind of hassle to diligent users of his software is funny. Ha ha, stupid user, you took the legally binding joke which I inserted into a legally binding license seriously, hahah you sooo funny. Yeah, a real barrel of laughs. Never mind that licensing law is a lot less flexible than contract law, in which unreasonable terms are readily removed.

arctangent 14y ago

"Good" and "evil" are relative concepts, not absolutes.

alexjarvis 14y ago

I think that this has probably been taken a little too literally. It would be interesting to get the original author’s opinion.. I agree completely with Sehe’s comment about the terms of the statement not being clearly defined and thus no judge could reasonably use it in court against any uses of the software. Good and Evil are subjective opinions to which each individual has their own beliefs.

jahewson 14y ago
There's no such thing as "too literally" in a legally binding contract, which is intended to be used anywhere on the world. All it takes is one open-minded judge. Sure it's 99.9% subjective, but why take a chance? What happens if it's used by a company that openly labels itself as evil? Not so subjective anymore... Crockford's act of granting special licenses to companies who may have evil-doing clients is a strong indicator that the clause is not a joke, that in practice it is taken seriously. A court would take this into account. The real problem with this stupid joke is that it requires a trip to court to invalidate it. Thanks Douglas!
- alexjarvis 14y ago
  I agree with you wholeheartedly, but you could argue that by granting it to some 'evil' clients, that he is invalidating his statement, proving that it is just a joke, and just laughing at everyone that asks for a special licence. Furthermore, has Douglas any intention to take someone to court over this? I don't know much about him, but I highly doubt it.
- saraid216 14y ago
  > The real problem with this stupid joke is that it requires a trip to court to invalidate it. I find myself strangely okay with the idea of requiring people to walk into a courtroom and admit that they intend to enact or permit evil.
  - alexjarvis 14y ago
    I would also quite like to see this happen.

markokocic 14y ago

I don't understand. The guy complain that json license is not "Free" in the FSF sense of "Free". So what? Not all licenses has to be FSF or FSF compatible. How is it harmful to FSF is the license of some piece of code is not compatible with GPL? Guess what, I can't use GPL in my projects, because it's not compatible with the kind of license I release my programs. You can't use this software because it's not comapatible with GPL. Feel the pain. FSF would advice people not to use GPL software if they can't stand the license. The same applies to you, if you really want to use your software for evil purpose, just license it that way. Otherwise, use something else. It's that simple.

lmm 14y ago
It's a license that's misleadingly almost-free. It's like the old 4-term BSD license with the "obnoxious advertising clause".
- irahul 14y ago
  > It's a license that's misleadingly almost-free. Like the GPL is misleadingly almost free? As in it's free but if you release software which uses GPL software, it is under GPL? I am not arguing about the meaning of free, I am arguing against your "it's a license that's misleadingly almost free". Just like GPL's terms doesn't make it non-free, "don't use it for evil" doesn't make it non-free. EDIT: I see people arguing about "don't use it for evil" violates "can use it for any purpose" clause. Fine. GPL's clause violates "use it to distribute software without making my whole software GPL."
  - lmm 14y ago
    On the terminology side: language is about communication, and there is a broad consensus on the meaning of "free" in terms of free software, exemplarized by the FSF's defnition, the OSI open source definition, and the DFSG. None of these definitions is identical to the others, and no doubt there are edge cases that would fall under one but not another, but neither the GPL nor Crockford's license is one of them; under this consensus meaning of "free" (which you claim not to be arguing about), the GPL is a free license and Crockford's is not. On the practical side: the GPL is established and popular enough that you should know what you're getting yourself in for with GPL code. In theory I can imagine someone unfamiliar with the free software movement hearing that a piece of GPL code was "free" and assuming that meant they could use it in their closed products, but in practice when people talk about "free" software they tend to either mean the free software definition, or "freeware" (i.e. binaries which can be downloaded without charge) - which generally doesn't permit modification and redistribution. So I don't think this is a practical concern. By contrast Crockford's license is not popular or established. Worse, it looks exceedingly similar to a popular, established license - the MIT license - which is free (in the free software sense). So it's very possible to accidentally download a Crockford-licensed piece of code, thinking that you can use it in a free software project, when in fact the license does not grant all the rights you would need to do this - as is demonstrated by the fact that the author of this post did exactly that. Crockford is free to distribute his code under whatever license he likes, but using a license that looks very much like the MIT license but grants you a much smaller set of rights (a set which puts it on the other side of a line that, while in many ways arbitrary, is of great practical relevance when it comes reusing code in the wider internet community) is not nice.

happywolf 14y ago

My software is for those who put their mugs at the right side of the desks. Wait, which side is right?

jasim 14y ago

The article is in bad taste. The title even more. If you don't like Crockford's license you are at liberty to write that code yourself. Please don't call people who contribute a great deal to advancing computing (Free Software or not) names like 'harmful to Free Software'. Even if there is genuine concern in the license and its usage in Free Software, it should be raised by pointing to the code and the license, not by making a personal attack. Articles like this are harmful to Free Software because it discourages people from contributing. Not Douglas Crockford's license written in good humour and with nice intentions.

bad_user 14y ago
People need to be aware that using childish clauses in licenses can have legal repercussions. This is not about "Free Software" or "Open Source" either, because that same clause can get you in trouble even if it comes in the EULA of a proprietary product. The article was itself childish, but then again, it's a personal blog, not some kind of official statement. > it discourages people from contributing True, but my perspective is different - what discourages people from contributing are ego-driven testosterone-filled spoiled brats. Incidentally that's why we also have so few women contributing.
- jasim 14y ago
  I'm not disagreeing with the message of caution. But it could have been said much better. > True, but my perspective is different - what discourages people from contributing are ego-driven testosterone-filled spoiled brats. Incidentally that's why we also have so few women contributing. Ego and Testosterone in the same sentence - that has to be bad! But it is a different conversation altogether.
  - chris_wot 14y ago
    Contrary to popular belief, neither ego nor testosterone are absent from women.
- sixbrx 14y ago
  So I guess the projects led by developers that are kind and helpful to a fault, of which there are quite a few in my experience, must have all the women contributers funnelled to them. I haven't seen that that's the case so I'm not so sure about your theory.

scotty79 14y ago

Good and evil are arbitrary concepts that are not formally recognized by courts (am I wrong?) so the phrase in the licence is meaningless. How can anyone be so lawyerised to care about that? Lawyers, licences, copyrights, patents are modern though police. So many people consider every creative action (and unfortunately often abandon it) afraid of what laws they might be potentially braking by executing this action.

rmc 14y ago
Good and evil are arbitrary concepts that are not formally recognized by courts (am I wrong?) I'm pretty sure court judgements have use moralistic statements and refered to things like "respect" or "evil", "inhuman". Judges are humans, not compilers. In fact a search of the British court judgements shows many instances of "evil" being referred to in judgements ( http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/sino_search_1.cgi?sort=rank&query=evil&method=boolean&highlight=1&mask_path=/ http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/sino_search_1.cgi?sort=rank&#3... ). It's the legal ambiguity that is the problem.
- snowwrestler 14y ago
  > Judges are humans, not compilers. This is exactly why I would not worry about it. No judge is going to look at that clause and think it is in any way intended to be enforced. Contrary to popular belief, there is plenty of room for common sense in a courtroom.

rbanffy 14y ago

The author makes a valid point - people should be able to use free software for any purpose and inclusion of this restriction in the license makes it non-free. In this specific case, I'd argue Mono is intrinsically evil and therefore should be prevented from using Crockford's software at all. If Microsoft embeds a Crockford-based JSON parser in their own releases, they are in clear violation of its terms. ;-)

andyjohnson0 14y ago
" I'd argue Mono is intrinsically evil" Could you explain why this is? I use Mono and I'm genuinely interested.
- rbanffy 14y ago
  My concern is that by using Mono you make the .NET runtime more popular and Windows more valuable. Since Microsoft has a long history of hostility towards software freedom (despite several open-source software they publish themselves), I don't think it's wise to further empower them.
- irahul 14y ago
  >> " I'd argue Mono is intrinsically evil" > Could you explain why this is? I use Mono and I'm genuinely interested. From the op's profile: "I really don't like Microsoft much." Apparently not liking MS much is reason enough to dislike an open source project implementing an interesting runtime and languages, which provides options to use aforementioned runtime and languages without being married to MS.
  - kaolinite 14y ago
    I suspect the reason he dislikes it, as many seem to, is that it's potentially legally unstable as Microsoft own IP related to C# and .net. I don't know the specifics (I don't use Mono myself), but I have heard people talking about possible problems in future if Microsoft changes their mind about encouraging Mono.

thenomad 14y ago

The key issue here seems to be whether the "good not evil" clause is in any way legally enforcible. If it's not, it's a bit of harmless fun. If it is, then potentially anyone using software licensed under the license discussed in the article is in some serious trouble, and the article itself has merit. So, any lawyers around who can give us a definitive answer to that one? Sadly, all the lawyers I know specialise in UK rather than US law.

jahewson 14y ago
It's not harmless fun if you have to get lawyers involved. The legal system is not the place for harmless fun, because it often backfires and causes harm. In this case, Crockford has issued special licenses to companies which may do evil, which is a pretty strong indicator that the clause is in fact not a joke. How would one enforce this license against a fictitious "Evil Inc." who self-proclaim "We do Evil", well now that's not subjective anymore? Hmm... ... oh hang on, aren't jokes supposed to be funny?
tzs 14y ago
(Not a lawyer, so don't take this as definitive) Generally, ambiguity in a contract goes against the party that wrote the ambiguous clause. I believe that applies both in the US and the UK (and I'd expect nearly anywhere else whose contract law arose out of English common law). Based on that, I'd expect someone trying to enforce a "good, not evil" clause to have a tough time.

noonespecial 14y ago

This non-Free license is intended to mock people who take licensing seriously. It seems to be working. (Though I might add a "too" in front of seriously). Sometimes ridiculous things need mocking. (And just for the record, I do fully expect future generations to find our preoccupation with "owning" and "licensing" every stray line of text or bar of musical notes to be thoroughly ridiculous.)

icebraining 14y ago
As long as violating one without a profit motive can get an individual convicted to pay $1.5 million dollars, there's nothing ridiculous about taking licenses seriously. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas)
- noonespecial 14y ago
  That's the satire. That's the joke. It's like an insane bit of legal performance art. The fact that you actually do have to take it seriously is the punch line.

scotty79 14y ago

I read that you can't distribute code that has no license. Why can't you do that? Will someone punish you for that if author won't sue anybody? Will his descendants inherit the right to sue distributor?

hilko 14y ago
My guess is the latter, but I'd love for a properly informed individual to answer this.
DougBTX 14y ago
Code is, generally speaking, copyrighted. Copying something copyrighted without permission is copyright infringement. A license is one way to get permission in writing.
irahul 14y ago
> I read that you can't distribute code that has no license. You can. It's just that unless otherwise stated, the owner has the copyright in most legislation. Without the license, if you derive from someone's code, he can sue you stating he never granted you the right to use his work.
icebraining 14y ago
IANAL I read that you can't distribute code that has no license. Why can't you do that? Because copyright law says so - it reserves the right to copy to the author. Will someone punish you for that if author won't sue anybody? I believe depends on whether you fall under a criminal or civil violation. http://www.chillingeffects.org/copyright/faq.cgi#QID885 http://www.chillingeffects.org/copyright/faq.cgi#QID885 Will his descendants inherit the right to sue distributor? Yes, it's pretty common for estates (of which the descendants are usually the executors) to sue distributors.
- scotty79 14y ago
  Mind-bending. Especially condition for violation to be criminal: 1) for commercial advantage or private financial gain or 3) by distributing copyrighted work where the infringer knew or should have known the work was intended for public distribution. Does that also cover non-American authors? And distribution of works of American authors abroad?

opminion 14y ago

Crockford triggered an argument at least as old as the Lutheran reform. The irony is that Crockford's licence is an unintended success in line with Eich's JavaScript itself. JavaScript, as a Lisp in disguise which survived early standardisation, browser wars, Microsoft's JScript, European bureaucracy (the E in ECMA?), Adobe and Crockford's own jslint, is a success at being something very, very useful. Crockford's "Good, not evil" licence, it could be argued, is a free licence only if the definition of good/evil is a personal one. One of the main issues of Luther's reform is that good and evil are a personal choice [1]. Crockford is succeeding at indirectly making people think of who has the right to tag something as good or evil. [1] At least that's what I remember from school.

ams6110 14y ago
One of the main issues of Luther's reform is that good and evil are a personal choice I wouldn't say it like that. Luther's main position was that salvation or forgiveness of sin was a personal matter between God and the sinner; that salvation comes directly from God and cannot not be conferred by a priest or church, in exchange for money, etc. and that the Bible itself was the source of divine knowledge, not the church.

runningdogx 14y ago

There is no place for humor or overly subjective terms like "evil" in a software license or other legal document, and the problem with Douglas Crockford's license is that he fails to understand that. That is, unless his intent is to keep every entity with sane lawyers from using his software. I don't think that's his intent. He said he wants to keep people without a sense of humor from using his software, but sane lawyers with a good sense of humor will object to the license just as strongly as sane lawyers with no sense of humor. Venue matters. A lawsuit based on the evil clause of the license, in San Francisco or Los Angeles, would probably go nowhere. However, consider a jury in Birmingham, AL, and whether they would find that using some of Crockford's software in an abortion clinic was a violation of the license.

jasim 14y ago
I don't disagree to this premise. Yes, it could be an issue - but Douglas Crockford is not morally obligated to worry about it. His code, his license. When you use it, you accept the risks that come with it. The post could have made a sane argument that the license is ambiguous and should be avoided in Free Software. But it focused on the author and made unjustifiable personal remarks. Not cool. The author also seem to forget that there are advocates of the MIT license who would never use GPL software because of its viral nature. Does that mean Richard Stallman is 'harmful to software'? Criticize the license, but don't name-call the author who has made major positive contributions to the field.
- jkn 14y ago
  You might as well say that Douglas Crockford is not morally obligated to be nice. Yes, I suppose he is entitled to behaving in ways that are harmful to Free Software, but we are also entitled to criticize him for that. The post criticizes both the license and Crockford's use of the license, focusing on the latter because licenses, like guns, are not harfmul in themselves. You might argue that Crockford's contributions to Free Software outweigh the nuisance of his license, but to people who won't use his code because of the license (as you propose they do if they don't like it), his contributions are, sadly, rather worthless. As for your last point, sure, Richard Stallman is arguably harmful to the Free Non-Copyleft Software movement, if such a thing exists. Is that a bad thing? I don't think there is a consensus in the Free Software community. Some OpenBSD folks certainly hate it...

raganwald 14y ago

Shouldn't this be, Why you should know what you're doing legally before you contribute code to free software? Or perhaps, The system works, notice how we avoided the mistake of including software with an eccentric and non-free license from being included in free software? It takes me back to the frenzy over VLC on iOS. People write code, we need to respect their choices with respect to how they license it, even if their choice is whimsey with a dangerous side of legal morass. This argument sounds dangerously like a tirade because Mr. Crockford did something that did not benefit the free software movement. His software is un-free, just as the GPL is un-free. I'm ok with that, even if my lawyer isn't ok with me using his code.

bad_user 14y ago
I agree with your argument, however I don't agree that the GPL is un-free. First of all, there's a clear distinction between the GPL and this modified MIT license - the GPL was written with the help of actual lawyers and it's a solid license that can stand on its own in a court of law. If you think that the GPL gives you certain privileges or takes away some freedoms, then it's actually easy to verify that by simply asking a lawyer. Also, GPL is a license that has restrictions on distribution and not usage. Usage of GPL-software is completely free. Of course, sometimes the usage/distribution boundaries are blurred when you're speaking about platforms, so GPL 3 drew a line in the sand to prevent cases such as Tivo, however to quote Linus Tolvards which represents the other side of the coin in any talks related to GPL [1]: """If you're a mad scientist, you can use GPLv2'd software for your evil plans to take over the world ("Sharks with lasers on their heads!!"), and the GPLv2 just says that you have to give source code back. And that's OK by me. I like sharks with lasers. I just want the mad scientists of the world to pay me back in kind. I made source code available to them, they have to make their changes to it available to me. After that, they can fry me with their shark-mounted lasers all they want.""" This is also not a matter of free / un-free. But rather a mater of legal liability. If somebody can prove that you used the software for "Evil", whatever that may mean, then you're legally liable. So what's evil anyway? Is making money evil? [1] http://www.forbes.com/2006/03/09/torvalds-linux-licensing-cz_dl_0309torvalds1_print.html http://www.forbes.com/2006/03/09/torvalds-linux-licensing-cz...
- 14y ago

mmahemoff 14y ago

A license like this has two red flags. I previously worked in a programme providing corporate governance of open source. It's a fairly big industry with companies like Black Duck helping companies manage their legal risks, and licenses like this aren't popular. Firstly, it's non-standard. As others have said, it's the author's right to make it non-standard, but I don't recommend people try that unless there's a really good reason to do so. If it's non-standard, a lot of companies simply won't use it. There's no box to check, so you can't have it. Good tracking software will of course allow for exceptions and deltas to the standard contracts, but it still creates delays and management overheads as if it's allowed at all, it will require someone's manual sign-off. This gets worse when you consider the whole chain of software use. One library inside another library that's used by a subcontractor who added it to a build script that's used by the main contractor to distribute to developers. The whole thing needs to be linked through, which is hard enough with standard licenses. Now startups don't need to worry about sign-off from some department, but they still need to stop and inspect the nature of the licenses they're using, and a non-standard license causes extra time and energy lost. The second problem is ambiguity. A non-standard contract can still be precisely written, so developers know what they're getting into. In this case, though, it's not. It hinges around the definition of "evil", which is naturally ambiguous. Comedy goes a long way, but is not always appropriate. This is a good article on the subject: http://www.natpryce.com/articles/000225.html http://www.natpryce.com/articles/000225.html "It may be less amusing to the programmer writing the code but, more importantly, it is less infuriating for the programmer maintaining the code." Think the same applies to licenses.

thedudemabry 14y ago
Well said. And while I absolutely agree with several other posters that Crockford has free reign to define the terms of use of his product, he didn't choose the most effective terms for what we all assume is his goal: spreading the use of json. A license is like a piece of code that binds to a system of laws at runtime. Effective license terms, like effective code, work within the problem domain and avoid ambiguity where it is likely to cause problems. His license compiles, but can throw runtime exceptions depending on context.

ivan_ah 14y ago

I disagree. While it //is// unprofessional to joke around with licensing, I think the author of the article (and some of the commenters her) seriously exaggerate the thread of a legal suit. Who will sue? EFF? Crockford? I am no expert in "license law", but I am sure a you-are-using-this-for-evil accusations would not stand a chance.

Evbn 14y ago
Crockford's heirs could sue. There is long established precedent of greedy heirs harassing the beneficiaries of their ancestors' largesse.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  Seems like more of a case for copyright reform than the relicensing of a javascript verifier. (Unless we are only interested in putting a bandaid on symptoms I suppose.)
nine_k 14y ago
google "frivolous lawsuit". Corporations troll each other in court quite often, in order to bleed the defendant and/or force them to resolve the case off-court, for a sum of money. Using code licensed under such a troll-bait like the "good, not evil" clause while having nice corporate revenue is a big mistake.

klausa 14y ago

>It’s fairly clear that the JSON.org license clause goes against both of these, making any piece of software using that license neither Open Source nor Free Software I'm sorry, is there some definition of Open Source that I'm not aware of?

andrewcooke 14y ago
wouldn't they be referring to http://opensource.org/osd http://opensource.org/osd ?
rmc 14y ago
There are a few definitions. The FSF has one http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html the OSI has one http://opensource.org/osd-annotated http://opensource.org/osd-annotated Debian has one http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines They are nearly all extactly the same. Another defintion is if the code is released under and OSI approved "open source licence" (http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical ) or an FSF approved "free software licence" ( http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html ). Again AFAIK, nearly exactly the same.

jballanc 14y ago

Sometimes I find the cognitive dissonance in the software community to be as entertaining to watch as that in various religious sects... Software types are famously inclined toward libertarian views. An oft repeated mantra on HN is "let the market decide". Yet, here we have myriad complaints about a decision the market has made. What I particularly love about the Open Source/Free Software world is that it is a market in the truest sense. Barriers to entry are extremely low and, while there aren't necessarily dollars to throw around, consumers vote with their time and attention, both quantities arguably more valuable than currency. It is interesting to watch this market choose benevolent dictatorship models of governance over more democratic rule. It is intriguing to see reinvented wheels succeed for seemingly inconsequential reasons. And, in this case, it is rather informative to observe how expediency wins out, even to the potential detriment of the very consumers who have made this choice. Reimplementing the code in question would require work. Clarifying or requesting a change of licensing terms would require work. Instead, the "market" (many, many OSS projects in this case) has chosen the preexisting solution that contains a potential time bomb. If I didn't know any better, I'd almost say that this article is a veiled call for regulation. It's almost as if the market, left to its own devices, doesn't always make the best long-term decisions when short-term benefit weighs in opposition. The world of Open Source/Free Software really is fascinating to watch...

skreech 14y ago
If you see it as a market, this is a typical market failure (externality and / or information assymmetry). Since the author has chosen a non-standard license, I doubt government regulation would help (unless that regulation outlawed non-standard FLOSS licenses). Probably would be better to reduce the information assymmetry. Maybe Github could have warning notifications for custom licenses, for example?
- jballanc 14y ago
  I've always considered the one thing that Google Code has over Github is the mandatory selection of a standard license when creating a publicly visible project. Also, to the point of regulation, the government is by no means the only vector by which it can be delivered. I think if you look through history, some of the most successful regulatory regimes have been separated from the traditional civil government.

0x0 14y ago

Funnily enough, Apple seems to be OK with this license, as it's shown on all iOS devices inside that long list of acknowledgments/legal inside settings somewhere.

theorique 14y ago
Apple doesn't do evil.
- curiousdannii 14y ago
  That they use the licence makes this undeniable, right? This is the ultimate proof we're after?

pooriaazimi 14y ago

Don't say "Free Software", please. Because you actually mean "FSF-compliant" license. Some people don't give the slightest damn what FSF or any other crazy institution has determined to be a "free" (as in thought/speech) software license. In my humble opinion, a true "free" software license is the kind of license that lets you do "whatever the fuck you want to do" with it - in other words, "public domain". GPL (whatever the version might be), in my opinion, is not a true "free" license because it forbids you to, for example, re-publish the source without attribution or using them without being GPL-compliant or any number of other restrictions. BSD is much better, but still has some restrictions. Even WTFPL[1] is not "free" (as in speech/thought), because it requires you to change the "name" upon re-distribution. So, yes; Douglas Crockford is harmful to "FSF"-kind of "free software", but I think GPL and BSD are also harmful to the more "idealistic" definition of "free software". [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL

aw3c2 14y ago
GPL/BSD are "restrictive" to protect the freedom of the software. You cannot have freedom without having a rule for freedom. Free software is not anarchy software.
- dpark 14y ago
  > You cannot have freedom without having a rule for freedom. Of course you can. Freedom is the lack of restrictions. I think you're confusing freedom with rights, which do indeed need protection. An argument could be made that what the GPL attempts to do is assert a right to the source code which they protect with restrictions to the developer's freedom. (Just as the right to life is protected with restrictions to the freedom to kill.)
  - fmoralesc 14y ago
    > Freedom is the lack of restrictions. That's just the negative sense of freedom. People mean sometimes a different sense of "freedom" , where to be free to do something implies rights, which then implies duties. See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/

RyanMcGreal 14y ago

This article goes to show that no good deed goes unpunished.

Evbn 14y ago
Not evil deed.

ams6110 14y ago

So quit whining and write your own json parser.

darrencauthon 14y ago

Programmers.............

tptacek 14y ago

To sum this story up: a programmer wrote a small piece of software that other people want to use and gave it away for free, with an idiosyncratic license. Therefore, sysadmins are entitled to disparage him. This story definitely makes me want to get more involved with organized free software.

damian2000 14y ago

Legal repurcussions? what I'd like to know is how many times has this "do good not evil" phrase in a license actually come up in court or been tested by lawyers? Probably never.

YokoZar 14y ago
If it ever actually ends up in court it has had far more than a single repercussion. Mere legal threats, or even the possibility of them, can seriously get in the way of productivity. Yes, it's stupid, and we should all lighten up and be able to laugh about it. We should also be able to laugh at obvious jokes about having weapons at an airport. There are some really unfunny people in this world, and in the meantime we unfortunately have to just deal with it.

kriro 14y ago

If you don't like the license, don't use the software. I think it's fairly ironic that freedom is supposed to undermine freedom. The man has the freedome to write up any license he wants and you have the freedom to not use it. I like the article, it's well written but (once again ironically) it also reads like the typical "the stuff is cool, I really want to use it pleaaaaase change the license" which I typically hear from people complaining about the GPL.

olliesaunders 14y ago

Am I wrong here but isn't all this concern a bit excessive because the only person who can actually sue you for a breach of this license is Crockford.

Kilimanjaro 14y ago

To use Javascript you don't need a license. Javascript object literals are part of Javascript, ergo, you don't need a license. Json, which is the string representation of a javascript object literal for transmission and storage, doesn't need a license either. I can do whatever the fuck I want with JSON and nobody can touch me. Look, I can even use it for EVIL if I want! So sue me.

Evbn 14y ago
Json isn't copyrighted. Json parsing libraries are.

tomrod 14y ago

"Son, you will NOT use this software for evil. The LAW won't let ya!" /s Is this _really_ a big deal?

macspoofing 14y ago

This clause was put in there for humour and is completely unenforceable in court, and that's even if someone actually wastes his or her time challenging it. They should get over themselves.

darrenkopp 14y ago

The real sad part is that is likely used by JsonSerializer class which was just kind of a quick hack to quickly add json support to a few things and it has been deprecated in favor of DataContractJsonSerializer. So the only people who are using that are people who started using it really quickly after it was released and haven't updated their code to stop using it.