4 ms·

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

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.
  - andreasvc 14y ago
    Uhm it's more typical in a court to accuse or deny. And invalidation would prove the whole thing a waste of time anyway.

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.
- andreasvc 14y ago
  Uhm it's more typical in a court to accuse or deny. And invalidation would prove the whole thing a waste of time anyway.