5 ms·

I give permission for IBM [...] to use JSLint for evil.

186 points by huhtenberg 14y ago

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
benesch 14y ago
Since the video link in the article seems not to work: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-C-JoyNuQJs&feature=player_detailpage#t=2480s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-C-JoyNuQJs&feature=playe...
- Samuel_Michon 14y ago
  Also, the part about the license starts at the 39:45 mark.
shared4you 14y ago
This is old news, already appeared on HN, for ex: 1. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=763165 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=763165 2. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3693108 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3693108 3. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4762035 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4762035 TIP: Just search on http://www.hnsearch.com http://www.hnsearch.com to see if you are not posting a duplicate. I understand that repetitions are sometimes ok for the benefit of new readers and all, so...
- huhtenberg 14y ago
  I think it's well worth a repost. Excellent tip though, excellent.
  - RexRollman 14y ago
    Maybe there should be a "most often reposted" section in HN.
    - Cthulhu_ 14y ago
      Or a simple link check.
      - koide 14y ago
        The simple link check exists. It's too simple and easily circumventable, though. Even if it weren't the case you could probably find alternative sources to do a repost.
      - simias 14y ago
        I think there already is, it's just that the cache gets flushed form time to time. What would be nice would be a way to merge several stories in a same comment thread, and maybe then "bump" older threads in case of reposts.
hopeless 14y ago
I tried to get approval to use an (entirely IBM-developed) open source library at IBM. The process took months and hadn't finished when I finally left. If I remember correctly, it was going to take approval from the team lead, 3 lawyers, and a VP (and possibly someone else, I can't remember). And that's after spending about a week or two running code scans to check for "suspicious" keywords like 'evil'^ and then individually checking each of the ~10,000 issues. I know why IBM has to these issue so seriously but remember this when you wonder why big companies can't execute as quickly as startups. And remember, the library I wanted to use only had contributions from IBM developers and was under the favoured Eclipse licence. ^ As an aside, putting 'evil' in your licence is pretty dumb. There is no definition of evil which can be argued over in any court. What you consider 'good', someone else almost certainly considers 'evil'
- rmc 14y ago
  ^ As an aside, putting 'evil' in your licence is pretty dumb. There is no definition of evil which can be argued over in any court. What you consider 'good', someone else almost certainly considers 'evil' Actually, one of the real dangers is if a court does recognise an act as evil, which they do all the time, just search court records for "evil". (For example, if a rapist uses your code, that would probably count as evil to a court) Then you're definitely breaking the law.
  - skrebbel 14y ago
    The license refers to evil actions, not evil people. If a rapist uses your code to rape people, your example might be more true, but I don't see how JSLint helps with that.
    - jiggy2011 14y ago
      I felt pretty violated when I ran it against some of my code and it told me how hard it sucked.
    - FooBarWidget 14y ago
      What if someone uses the code to build a weapon and then kills people with it? Can the court hold you liable?
eksith 14y ago
The genius of this license is that not only does it stop semi-evil people (because truly evil people don't care about the author's wishes), it stops stupid people. Which, in a long about way, is a type of unintended evil.
0x0 14y ago
Inside the iOS terms & credits page deep inside settings, this license is present. So I guess you can't use iPhones for evil.
- Spooky23 14y ago
  You should let prosecutors know this. Evil use of iPhones is probably a felony.
- glass- 14y ago
  You also can't use iTunes in the "development, design, manufacture, or production of nuclear, missile, or chemical or biological weapons."
  - mpyne 14y ago
    Which is at least a specific set of prohibitions instead of a wishy-washy poorly-defined one.
  - jgj 14y ago
    well, there goes my 20% project
  - troels 14y ago
    Arguably, that is a subset of Evil.
nraynaud 14y ago
I need to send this guy some beer (it's like flowers for men).
mmahemoff 14y ago
This issue came up again recently with the Democrats' voter registration application (http://pauladamsmith.com/blog/2013/01/dnc_voter_reg_foss.html http://pauladamsmith.com/blog/2013/01/dnc_voter_reg_foss.htm...). The take-home is don't do that. Don't modify a standard open source contract on a whim as it will inevitably cause serious hassle later. Okay if you have some major ethical/legal objection, then just beware it will cause some major hassle. JSON is an exception. It came along when the programming world was desperate to be liberated from XML bondage...a fine solution surfaced at the right place and right time. And also at a time when people cared less about open source license specifics. For any average project, you're adding more barriers to adoption than you probably realise. (I said more about this the last time http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4762261 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4762261)
- WayneDB 14y ago
  I disagree that JSON has "liberated" most of the programming world from XML. In many, many, many places where XML has been used in the past, it is still used because JSON is a very poor substitute in those cases.
  - pestaa 14y ago
    Agreed, but JSON still offers a fine alternative when you have no requirements for XML's verbosity and other characteristics.
  - mmahemoff 14y ago
    Pretty much all APIs from web/tech/startups now are JSON-based, I think. I'm sure XML is still used in enterprise and legacy situations, but it would have been a lot more widespread if JSON didn't come along.
    - vidar 14y ago
      Enterprise and legacy are not a trivial part of the computing landscape.
jobigoud 14y ago
I really hate this type of licenses. Articles contributed to Code Project default to a license with this type of clause too. It makes it impossible to include it in a GPL project. It breaks freedom zero, the freedom to "run the program, for any purpose".
throwaway_ibmer 14y ago
IBM seek repeated permission like this for lots of reasons, but mainly to avoid possible problems in the future. I've been through this process a few times getting permission to include 3rd party packages in our products. It's long and drawn out but I can see why they do it. It all boils down to the fact that it's not just as simple as IBM trusting the license terms as shown. For example, someone can take some code protected by GPLv2, naughtily strip off that license and apply a completely different (friendlier) license such as MIT or Eclipse. If IBM trusted this code (and license) as supplied then it (IBM) could get sued because it is (unknowingly) using GPLv2 licensed code and not honoring the conditions. It matters not one bit that they thought it was MIT or Eclipse licensed. It matters not one bit that someone else did the naughty thing of changing the license. IBM can still get sued, and theoretically be forced to publish source code that they may not want to, and people love suing IBM. Another example question is: Did all contributors to the code have permission from their employers (if appropriate) to participate in the development of the package and relinquish their (the employer's) rights to any claim for the code? The license is only as strong as its weakest link. I know I've had a package turned down because we weren't able to get in contact with every contributer in order to convince the legal team that this wasn't a risk. In other words, IBM want to be absolutely sure that including this code isn't ever going to come back and bite them in the ass if they do use this package.
drucken 14y ago
JSON license "The Software should be used for Good, not Evil." Reply: "I give permission for IBM, its customers, partners, and minions, to use JSLint for evil." I wonder if they sought further clarification if evil is the same as Evil?
drobilla 14y ago
"Ha ha ha, I intentionally cause huge legal problems for the Open Source world and the software world in general, hilarious, right?" This stupid little license game of Crockford's is childish and inappropriate. The more he jokes about it the less respect I have for him. Grow up.

186 points by huhtenberg 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

Since the video link in the article seems not to work: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-C-JoyNuQJs&feature=player_detailpage#t=2480s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-C-JoyNuQJs&feature=playe...

Samuel_Michon 14y ago
Also, the part about the license starts at the 39:45 mark.

shared4you 14y ago

This is old news, already appeared on HN, for ex: 1. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=763165 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=763165 2. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3693108 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3693108 3. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4762035 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4762035 TIP: Just search on http://www.hnsearch.com http://www.hnsearch.com to see if you are not posting a duplicate. I understand that repetitions are sometimes ok for the benefit of new readers and all, so...

huhtenberg 14y ago
I think it's well worth a repost. Excellent tip though, excellent.
- RexRollman 14y ago
  Maybe there should be a "most often reposted" section in HN.
  - Cthulhu_ 14y ago
    Or a simple link check.
    - koide 14y ago
      The simple link check exists. It's too simple and easily circumventable, though. Even if it weren't the case you could probably find alternative sources to do a repost.
    - simias 14y ago
      I think there already is, it's just that the cache gets flushed form time to time. What would be nice would be a way to merge several stories in a same comment thread, and maybe then "bump" older threads in case of reposts.

hopeless 14y ago

I tried to get approval to use an (entirely IBM-developed) open source library at IBM. The process took months and hadn't finished when I finally left. If I remember correctly, it was going to take approval from the team lead, 3 lawyers, and a VP (and possibly someone else, I can't remember). And that's after spending about a week or two running code scans to check for "suspicious" keywords like 'evil'^ and then individually checking each of the ~10,000 issues. I know why IBM has to these issue so seriously but remember this when you wonder why big companies can't execute as quickly as startups. And remember, the library I wanted to use only had contributions from IBM developers and was under the favoured Eclipse licence. ^ As an aside, putting 'evil' in your licence is pretty dumb. There is no definition of evil which can be argued over in any court. What you consider 'good', someone else almost certainly considers 'evil'

rmc 14y ago
^ As an aside, putting 'evil' in your licence is pretty dumb. There is no definition of evil which can be argued over in any court. What you consider 'good', someone else almost certainly considers 'evil' Actually, one of the real dangers is if a court does recognise an act as evil, which they do all the time, just search court records for "evil". (For example, if a rapist uses your code, that would probably count as evil to a court) Then you're definitely breaking the law.
- skrebbel 14y ago
  The license refers to evil actions, not evil people. If a rapist uses your code to rape people, your example might be more true, but I don't see how JSLint helps with that.
  - jiggy2011 14y ago
    I felt pretty violated when I ran it against some of my code and it told me how hard it sucked.
  - FooBarWidget 14y ago
    What if someone uses the code to build a weapon and then kills people with it? Can the court hold you liable?

eksith 14y ago

The genius of this license is that not only does it stop semi-evil people (because truly evil people don't care about the author's wishes), it stops stupid people. Which, in a long about way, is a type of unintended evil.

0x0 14y ago

Inside the iOS terms & credits page deep inside settings, this license is present. So I guess you can't use iPhones for evil.

Spooky23 14y ago
You should let prosecutors know this. Evil use of iPhones is probably a felony.
glass- 14y ago
You also can't use iTunes in the "development, design, manufacture, or production of nuclear, missile, or chemical or biological weapons."
- mpyne 14y ago
  Which is at least a specific set of prohibitions instead of a wishy-washy poorly-defined one.
- jgj 14y ago
  well, there goes my 20% project
- troels 14y ago
  Arguably, that is a subset of Evil.

nraynaud 14y ago

I need to send this guy some beer (it's like flowers for men).

mmahemoff 14y ago

This issue came up again recently with the Democrats' voter registration application (http://pauladamsmith.com/blog/2013/01/dnc_voter_reg_foss.html http://pauladamsmith.com/blog/2013/01/dnc_voter_reg_foss.htm...). The take-home is don't do that. Don't modify a standard open source contract on a whim as it will inevitably cause serious hassle later. Okay if you have some major ethical/legal objection, then just beware it will cause some major hassle. JSON is an exception. It came along when the programming world was desperate to be liberated from XML bondage...a fine solution surfaced at the right place and right time. And also at a time when people cared less about open source license specifics. For any average project, you're adding more barriers to adoption than you probably realise. (I said more about this the last time http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4762261 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4762261)

WayneDB 14y ago
I disagree that JSON has "liberated" most of the programming world from XML. In many, many, many places where XML has been used in the past, it is still used because JSON is a very poor substitute in those cases.
- pestaa 14y ago
  Agreed, but JSON still offers a fine alternative when you have no requirements for XML's verbosity and other characteristics.
- mmahemoff 14y ago
  Pretty much all APIs from web/tech/startups now are JSON-based, I think. I'm sure XML is still used in enterprise and legacy situations, but it would have been a lot more widespread if JSON didn't come along.
  - vidar 14y ago
    Enterprise and legacy are not a trivial part of the computing landscape.

jobigoud 14y ago

I really hate this type of licenses. Articles contributed to Code Project default to a license with this type of clause too. It makes it impossible to include it in a GPL project. It breaks freedom zero, the freedom to "run the program, for any purpose".

throwaway_ibmer 14y ago

IBM seek repeated permission like this for lots of reasons, but mainly to avoid possible problems in the future. I've been through this process a few times getting permission to include 3rd party packages in our products. It's long and drawn out but I can see why they do it. It all boils down to the fact that it's not just as simple as IBM trusting the license terms as shown. For example, someone can take some code protected by GPLv2, naughtily strip off that license and apply a completely different (friendlier) license such as MIT or Eclipse. If IBM trusted this code (and license) as supplied then it (IBM) could get sued because it is (unknowingly) using GPLv2 licensed code and not honoring the conditions. It matters not one bit that they thought it was MIT or Eclipse licensed. It matters not one bit that someone else did the naughty thing of changing the license. IBM can still get sued, and theoretically be forced to publish source code that they may not want to, and people love suing IBM. Another example question is: Did all contributors to the code have permission from their employers (if appropriate) to participate in the development of the package and relinquish their (the employer's) rights to any claim for the code? The license is only as strong as its weakest link. I know I've had a package turned down because we weren't able to get in contact with every contributer in order to convince the legal team that this wasn't a risk. In other words, IBM want to be absolutely sure that including this code isn't ever going to come back and bite them in the ass if they do use this package.

drucken 14y ago

JSON license "The Software should be used for Good, not Evil." Reply: "I give permission for IBM, its customers, partners, and minions, to use JSLint for evil." I wonder if they sought further clarification if evil is the same as Evil?

drobilla 14y ago

"Ha ha ha, I intentionally cause huge legal problems for the Open Source world and the software world in general, hilarious, right?" This stupid little license game of Crockford's is childish and inappropriate. The more he jokes about it the less respect I have for him. Grow up.