6 ms·
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 po
by 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 agoIt'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.