4 ms·

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 mista

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.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  If its not an option for Debian, it is only because of their own peculiarity that it isn't. The type or magnitude of the "payment" is unspecified and open to any negotiation at all. They could even send him an email asking for a GPL license to it in exchange for rewards in the afterlife. He may not go for it, but they are certainly capable of asking.
andreasvc 14y ago
It doesn't work like that. For the code to be part of a Linux distribution like Debian, they have to be able to distribute it to everyone, so such a request would amount to asking can you please remove the clause from the license. And your point about not making demands to things you get for free is not true in general. When someone offers money to the local animal shelter under the condition that it's only used for cute red cats, they're right to refuse I'd say. Bad licenses obstruct the progress of free software, so it's necessary to call them out.
- darkarmani 14y ago
  Maybe someone add Debian should have paid attention when they included the incompatible license? This really looks like a Debian tantrum because they screwed up by including it. It seems like this Debian developer is mad because an author didn't write a license the way he want it written?
  - lmm 14y ago
    It's an easy mistake to make seeing how Crockford's license is almost, but not quite, identical to the MIT license (which would've been fine).
- hnal943 14y ago
  Refusing the money and sarcastically thanking the donor for "ruining animal shelters" are two drastically different reactions.

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.

jlgreco 14y ago
If its not an option for Debian, it is only because of their own peculiarity that it isn't. The type or magnitude of the "payment" is unspecified and open to any negotiation at all. They could even send him an email asking for a GPL license to it in exchange for rewards in the afterlife. He may not go for it, but they are certainly capable of asking.

andreasvc 14y ago

It doesn't work like that. For the code to be part of a Linux distribution like Debian, they have to be able to distribute it to everyone, so such a request would amount to asking can you please remove the clause from the license. And your point about not making demands to things you get for free is not true in general. When someone offers money to the local animal shelter under the condition that it's only used for cute red cats, they're right to refuse I'd say. Bad licenses obstruct the progress of free software, so it's necessary to call them out.

darkarmani 14y ago
Maybe someone add Debian should have paid attention when they included the incompatible license? This really looks like a Debian tantrum because they screwed up by including it. It seems like this Debian developer is mad because an author didn't write a license the way he want it written?
- lmm 14y ago
  It's an easy mistake to make seeing how Crockford's license is almost, but not quite, identical to the MIT license (which would've been fine).
hnal943 14y ago
Refusing the money and sarcastically thanking the donor for "ruining animal shelters" are two drastically different reactions.