5 ms·

Don't Be a Jerk: The Open Source Software License

40 points by hippich 12y ago

warmwaffles 12y ago
How is this different than http://www.dbad-license.org/ http://www.dbad-license.org/
- EduardoBautista 12y ago
  And MIT to be honest.
- gojomo 12y ago
  Panache!
- oxide 12y ago
  I don't recall anyone saying it was original, but I'll be damned if this one isn't better.
- im3w1l 12y ago
  >Being a dick includes - but is not limited to - the following instances: That "is not limited too" sounds scary. I would hesitate to use software under that license. So I guess that is the big difference between the licenses: One allows you to do pretty much whatever you want. The other allows you to be sued for pretty much whatever the author wants.
  - lmm 12y ago
    This one does so too, just less explicitly. It ends with "don't be a jerk", and the rest of it contains examples of things that would make you a jerk, but there's nothing that says those are the only ways to be a jerk.
    - im3w1l 12y ago
      My IANAL interpretation is that the "don't be a jerk" is not intended to be a clause of the contract. A few things point to this interpretation. * All other clauses clauses start with > * It is followed by "enjoy your free software", which is clearly not intended to be mandatory * Your interpretation is contradicted by the two instances of "You don't have to, but not doing so would make you a jerk." Those instances are examples of thing that do make you a jerk but are nevertheless allowed.
Animats 12y ago
I'd like a standard license which is like the GPL, plus you can't bundle it into anything with ads or spyware, interpreted broadly. This would prevent things such as SourceForge's malware installer wrapper.
- dguaraglia 12y ago
  Ohhh, now there's a good idea. I'd like something like MIT but with the same clause. Maybe someone with a better grasp of legalese can draft a common "don't use this in your shitty deceptive/scammy software" clause we can put at the end of any other license?
  - DSMan195276 12y ago
    IANAL, but I believe you may find this is more trouble then it's worth. I like the idea, but if you add such a clause to your software's license, then your software won't be able to be included in other software that has the same license as your's unless they also amend their license (Which may be impossible to do). IE. If you license your code, project A, with 'GPLv3 + no-stupid-software', and project B wants to use your code but they're licensed as 'GPLv3', legally they can't because the licenses are incompatible. Project B would have to amend their license to add the 'no-stupid-software' clause to make it compatible with project A (But of course doing that may introduce other license incompatibilities with other pieces of software, and projects with a decent number of contributors probably don't have much of an option to change license at this point). I don't know if there would be any incompatibilities going the other direction: You want to use project B in your software, and project B has the license 'GPLv3' but your software has the license 'GPLv3 + no-stupid-software'. I think that should be ok, assuming that clause doesn't conflict with anything already in the GPL, but again, IANAL.
  - Argorak 12y ago
    Mozilla does that by keeping the trademark for Firefox and the logo and only allowing the distribution of vanilla packages using them. Trademarks are expensive and take effort, though, so this is not a model for small maintainers.
- 12y ago
Argorak 12y ago
This is more resembling a manifest then a license.
zck 12y ago
So if I licence my code under this license, you get to do whatever you want -- including using the code in proprietary software -- but I have to provide downloads of it forever? Seems like a downgrade over BSD or MIT licenses, if you want a permissive license.
- Athas 12y ago
  It's not really a license at that point, as I don't think you can impose obligations upon yourself that easily - at least not ones that have legal weight. This seems more like a statement of intent, which is nice I guess. But still, don't write your own licenses. There is no point, and if your software is succesful, at some point someone somewhere will have headaches over whether your license really gives them the legal permission they need.
makeitsuckless 12y ago
Taking an intellectually lazy passive-aggressive jab at people who support in free (as in freedom) software falls under the heading "being a jerk".
- Potando 12y ago
  Isn't it a good thing to spread awareness of what can be a misleading topic? Public arguments help to enlighten people who might be misled by the confusingly overloaded word "freedom". I appreciate the concept of GPL raising the bar too high for commercial software to compete and it's been a great success in some areas. But that isn't quite the same as freedom. It might be more accurately be called "forced free" software.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
drrotmos 12y ago
This reminds me of the JSON license, which includes a clause stating that "The software shall be used for good, not evil." That particular clause has caused quite a bit of headache for PHP package maintainers, because technically it makes the license a non-open source license, even though the rest of the license is just your bog standard MIT/BSD-like license. Long story short, don't write your own licenses.
- belorn 12y ago
  Im looking through the OSI definition (http://opensource.org/osd-annotated http://opensource.org/osd-annotated) and wondering what clause would break from a "for good, not evil" requirement. Would it be Discrimination Against evil Fields of Endeavor?
  - lmm 12y ago
    Yes, exactly that. Evil is a perfectly legitimate field of endeavour.
  - rtpg 12y ago
    Pretty sure it's that. I mean is finance work evil? Somebody might think so..
  - rmc 12y ago
    Pretty much. The problem is how you define "good" and "evil"? Can the US military use this software? Can a church that prints a document about "traditional marriage" use this software? Can an anti-fascist group use it to organise physical confrontation with far right groups? What does evil mean? You'll need to ask a judge.
    - cbd1984 12y ago
      And the worst part is, the developer will likely refuse to see that there is, or ever could be, a problem. "It's evil, fercryingoutloud! Don't do evil! Everyone knows what evil is!" And it gets used, and that clause sits there, like a hidden dog turd, waiting for someone to step in the wrong spot, and all of a sudden the developer and their minions are up in arms about the user and their minions, who are so obviously evil that there shouldn't even be a discussion. Because it's evil, and evil is self-evident. Except it isn't. It really, really isn't.
BasDirks 12y ago
Why not formulate this positively, ie. "Be a Champ"? It would get rid of the passive aggressive stink. Or was that the point?
DannyBee 12y ago
Sadly, the warranty disclaimer may not be valid in the US as a disclaimer of warranties. To be effective as a disclaimer of the implied warranty of merchantability, it must mention merchantability. This is explicit UCC law in all 50 states (warranty of fitness can be disclaimed without explicit reference to it). The only way around tht is the next section, which states "Unless the circumstances indicate otherwise, all implied warranties are excluded by expressions like "as is," "with all faults" or other language which in common understanding calls the buyer's attention to the exclusion of warranties and makes plain that there is no implied warranty;" This is why why licenses use the term "as-is", to avoid arguments about whether it falls into the "makes plain" part. Only a few courts have really considered the issue on something that is a close call, because, as one contracts book i have put it: "Given the UCC has explicitly approved language to disclaim implied warranties, it would be folly to use anything else" However, the cases i can find are split as to whether wording like this would be plain enough language (among other things, using the term "offer" in that sentence is a really bad idea, as it can arguably be read to say that he does not sell warranties, instead of saying that there are no warranties)
thomasfl 12y ago
I recommend using the "Do What the Fuck You Want to Public License" (WTFPL). The simplest license there is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL
- awalGarg 12y ago
  <3 WTFPL. Also see http://dev.bukkit.org/licenses/2977-idgaf-v1-0-license/ http://dev.bukkit.org/licenses/2977-idgaf-v1-0-license/ ;)
yitchelle 12y ago
For my understanding, can someone explain to me how this license is different from a public domain license? It looks about the same except that this license will see you as a jerk if you don't play nice.
- Argorak 12y ago
  No one actually ever checked whether it even has the slightest chance to hold up in court. Neither "free" nor "open source" are strict terms in a legal sense, the rest is a non-exhaustive set of examples. It's probably never of any practical issue for the developer, as they don't care enough, but for people that actually have to audit their code bases for legal issues, this thing is a no-go.
kybernetyk 12y ago
> I will never charge you to use, license, or obtain this software. Doing so would make me a jerk. Feeding your family or paying rent seem to be real jerk moves then I guess.
- davidw 12y ago
  There are other ways of feeding your family, and also, there are 'jerk' things that you wouldn't do to feed your family, because they're immoral. That said, I don't happen to view making proprietary software as immoral, and I don't like the judgmental tone of what he wrote either. And in any case, like drrotmos and others write, don't write your own license, it's generally a bad idea.
  - dalke 12y ago
    Being able to sell one's software is part of the four essential freedoms of free software. "Distributing free software is an opportunity to raise funds for development. Don't waste it!" - https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html My software is distributed under the MIT license. I charge money for customers to get access to the software. Therefore, I am a jerk under the terms of this license. The license claims that the software is both free and open source. It understands neither philosophy.
flipcoder 12y ago
> I will never take down or start charging for what is available today. You'll never take this down... ever?
pm24601 12y ago
Its not a license. It doesn't say the "licensor" will not do something nor does it say that the "licensee" can't do something. It is a bunch of opinion statements. It is a non-lawyer attempting cuteness... and failing.
perdunov 12y ago
A guy who puts out something for free is a jerk. Why? Because there can be another guy who has tried to make a living from selling a product in the same niche - a high quality product for a reasonable price. And the 'altruistic jerk' has just ruined the business of the good guy turning the niche into a monopoly of the free crap.
- Potando 12y ago
  If you consider the purpose of industry as being to make sellers rich, then yes. But if the purpose is to make consumers better off overall, then no, he's not being a jerk at all. The guy who produces software too inefficiently to compete with the free one shouldn't be subsidized by all the users. I am that guy, I do worry about open source software encroaching on my niche. But I don't blame the authors for stealing my customers!
  - perdunov 12y ago
    Are you familiar with the concept of predatory pricing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing)? Do you think it is an okay thing, applied to either brick and mortar or software?
    - Potando 12y ago
      Predatory pricing doesn't benefit consumers overall, so if I'm most interested in their wellbeing, I don't think it's an OK thing.
      - perdunov 12y ago
        Isn't releasing a free product also predatory pricing? No "free" software is actually free. The developers have just used some resources from elsewhere to create the product (spare time while earning a living from a daytime job also counts), and then released it for free gaining an unfair advantage over those who try to make the product development self-sustained. This is purely cheating or predatory pricing.
mrda 12y ago
The problem with these licences is that they prevent your software from being used in laregr software projects and distributions. Bottom line is: This is cute, this should be sensible, but it makes those people whose job it is to build software systems difficult, and what it means is that your software, no matter how good it is, won't be used. Instead use a http://opensource.org/licenses http://opensource.org/licenses licence.

40 points by hippich 12y ago

warmwaffles 12y ago

How is this different than http://www.dbad-license.org/ http://www.dbad-license.org/

EduardoBautista 12y ago
And MIT to be honest.
gojomo 12y ago
Panache!
oxide 12y ago
I don't recall anyone saying it was original, but I'll be damned if this one isn't better.
im3w1l 12y ago
>Being a dick includes - but is not limited to - the following instances: That "is not limited too" sounds scary. I would hesitate to use software under that license. So I guess that is the big difference between the licenses: One allows you to do pretty much whatever you want. The other allows you to be sued for pretty much whatever the author wants.
- lmm 12y ago
  This one does so too, just less explicitly. It ends with "don't be a jerk", and the rest of it contains examples of things that would make you a jerk, but there's nothing that says those are the only ways to be a jerk.
  - im3w1l 12y ago
    My IANAL interpretation is that the "don't be a jerk" is not intended to be a clause of the contract. A few things point to this interpretation. * All other clauses clauses start with > * It is followed by "enjoy your free software", which is clearly not intended to be mandatory * Your interpretation is contradicted by the two instances of "You don't have to, but not doing so would make you a jerk." Those instances are examples of thing that do make you a jerk but are nevertheless allowed.

Animats 12y ago

I'd like a standard license which is like the GPL, plus you can't bundle it into anything with ads or spyware, interpreted broadly. This would prevent things such as SourceForge's malware installer wrapper.

dguaraglia 12y ago
Ohhh, now there's a good idea. I'd like something like MIT but with the same clause. Maybe someone with a better grasp of legalese can draft a common "don't use this in your shitty deceptive/scammy software" clause we can put at the end of any other license?
- DSMan195276 12y ago
  IANAL, but I believe you may find this is more trouble then it's worth. I like the idea, but if you add such a clause to your software's license, then your software won't be able to be included in other software that has the same license as your's unless they also amend their license (Which may be impossible to do). IE. If you license your code, project A, with 'GPLv3 + no-stupid-software', and project B wants to use your code but they're licensed as 'GPLv3', legally they can't because the licenses are incompatible. Project B would have to amend their license to add the 'no-stupid-software' clause to make it compatible with project A (But of course doing that may introduce other license incompatibilities with other pieces of software, and projects with a decent number of contributors probably don't have much of an option to change license at this point). I don't know if there would be any incompatibilities going the other direction: You want to use project B in your software, and project B has the license 'GPLv3' but your software has the license 'GPLv3 + no-stupid-software'. I think that should be ok, assuming that clause doesn't conflict with anything already in the GPL, but again, IANAL.
- Argorak 12y ago
  Mozilla does that by keeping the trademark for Firefox and the logo and only allowing the distribution of vanilla packages using them. Trademarks are expensive and take effort, though, so this is not a model for small maintainers.
12y ago

Argorak 12y ago

This is more resembling a manifest then a license.

zck 12y ago

So if I licence my code under this license, you get to do whatever you want -- including using the code in proprietary software -- but I have to provide downloads of it forever? Seems like a downgrade over BSD or MIT licenses, if you want a permissive license.

Athas 12y ago
It's not really a license at that point, as I don't think you can impose obligations upon yourself that easily - at least not ones that have legal weight. This seems more like a statement of intent, which is nice I guess. But still, don't write your own licenses. There is no point, and if your software is succesful, at some point someone somewhere will have headaches over whether your license really gives them the legal permission they need.

makeitsuckless 12y ago

Taking an intellectually lazy passive-aggressive jab at people who support in free (as in freedom) software falls under the heading "being a jerk".

Potando 12y ago
Isn't it a good thing to spread awareness of what can be a misleading topic? Public arguments help to enlighten people who might be misled by the confusingly overloaded word "freedom". I appreciate the concept of GPL raising the bar too high for commercial software to compete and it's been a great success in some areas. But that isn't quite the same as freedom. It might be more accurately be called "forced free" software.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

drrotmos 12y ago

This reminds me of the JSON license, which includes a clause stating that "The software shall be used for good, not evil." That particular clause has caused quite a bit of headache for PHP package maintainers, because technically it makes the license a non-open source license, even though the rest of the license is just your bog standard MIT/BSD-like license. Long story short, don't write your own licenses.

belorn 12y ago
Im looking through the OSI definition (http://opensource.org/osd-annotated http://opensource.org/osd-annotated) and wondering what clause would break from a "for good, not evil" requirement. Would it be Discrimination Against evil Fields of Endeavor?
- lmm 12y ago
  Yes, exactly that. Evil is a perfectly legitimate field of endeavour.
- rtpg 12y ago
  Pretty sure it's that. I mean is finance work evil? Somebody might think so..
- rmc 12y ago
  Pretty much. The problem is how you define "good" and "evil"? Can the US military use this software? Can a church that prints a document about "traditional marriage" use this software? Can an anti-fascist group use it to organise physical confrontation with far right groups? What does evil mean? You'll need to ask a judge.
  - cbd1984 12y ago
    And the worst part is, the developer will likely refuse to see that there is, or ever could be, a problem. "It's evil, fercryingoutloud! Don't do evil! Everyone knows what evil is!" And it gets used, and that clause sits there, like a hidden dog turd, waiting for someone to step in the wrong spot, and all of a sudden the developer and their minions are up in arms about the user and their minions, who are so obviously evil that there shouldn't even be a discussion. Because it's evil, and evil is self-evident. Except it isn't. It really, really isn't.

BasDirks 12y ago

Why not formulate this positively, ie. "Be a Champ"? It would get rid of the passive aggressive stink. Or was that the point?

DannyBee 12y ago

Sadly, the warranty disclaimer may not be valid in the US as a disclaimer of warranties. To be effective as a disclaimer of the implied warranty of merchantability, it must mention merchantability. This is explicit UCC law in all 50 states (warranty of fitness can be disclaimed without explicit reference to it). The only way around tht is the next section, which states "Unless the circumstances indicate otherwise, all implied warranties are excluded by expressions like "as is," "with all faults" or other language which in common understanding calls the buyer's attention to the exclusion of warranties and makes plain that there is no implied warranty;" This is why why licenses use the term "as-is", to avoid arguments about whether it falls into the "makes plain" part. Only a few courts have really considered the issue on something that is a close call, because, as one contracts book i have put it: "Given the UCC has explicitly approved language to disclaim implied warranties, it would be folly to use anything else" However, the cases i can find are split as to whether wording like this would be plain enough language (among other things, using the term "offer" in that sentence is a really bad idea, as it can arguably be read to say that he does not sell warranties, instead of saying that there are no warranties)

thomasfl 12y ago

I recommend using the "Do What the Fuck You Want to Public License" (WTFPL). The simplest license there is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL

awalGarg 12y ago
<3 WTFPL. Also see http://dev.bukkit.org/licenses/2977-idgaf-v1-0-license/ http://dev.bukkit.org/licenses/2977-idgaf-v1-0-license/ ;)

yitchelle 12y ago

For my understanding, can someone explain to me how this license is different from a public domain license? It looks about the same except that this license will see you as a jerk if you don't play nice.

Argorak 12y ago
No one actually ever checked whether it even has the slightest chance to hold up in court. Neither "free" nor "open source" are strict terms in a legal sense, the rest is a non-exhaustive set of examples. It's probably never of any practical issue for the developer, as they don't care enough, but for people that actually have to audit their code bases for legal issues, this thing is a no-go.

kybernetyk 12y ago

> I will never charge you to use, license, or obtain this software. Doing so would make me a jerk. Feeding your family or paying rent seem to be real jerk moves then I guess.

davidw 12y ago
There are other ways of feeding your family, and also, there are 'jerk' things that you wouldn't do to feed your family, because they're immoral. That said, I don't happen to view making proprietary software as immoral, and I don't like the judgmental tone of what he wrote either. And in any case, like drrotmos and others write, don't write your own license, it's generally a bad idea.
- dalke 12y ago
  Being able to sell one's software is part of the four essential freedoms of free software. "Distributing free software is an opportunity to raise funds for development. Don't waste it!" - https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html My software is distributed under the MIT license. I charge money for customers to get access to the software. Therefore, I am a jerk under the terms of this license. The license claims that the software is both free and open source. It understands neither philosophy.

flipcoder 12y ago

> I will never take down or start charging for what is available today. You'll never take this down... ever?

pm24601 12y ago

Its not a license. It doesn't say the "licensor" will not do something nor does it say that the "licensee" can't do something. It is a bunch of opinion statements. It is a non-lawyer attempting cuteness... and failing.

perdunov 12y ago

A guy who puts out something for free is a jerk. Why? Because there can be another guy who has tried to make a living from selling a product in the same niche - a high quality product for a reasonable price. And the 'altruistic jerk' has just ruined the business of the good guy turning the niche into a monopoly of the free crap.

Potando 12y ago
If you consider the purpose of industry as being to make sellers rich, then yes. But if the purpose is to make consumers better off overall, then no, he's not being a jerk at all. The guy who produces software too inefficiently to compete with the free one shouldn't be subsidized by all the users. I am that guy, I do worry about open source software encroaching on my niche. But I don't blame the authors for stealing my customers!
- perdunov 12y ago
  Are you familiar with the concept of predatory pricing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing)? Do you think it is an okay thing, applied to either brick and mortar or software?
  - Potando 12y ago
    Predatory pricing doesn't benefit consumers overall, so if I'm most interested in their wellbeing, I don't think it's an OK thing.
    - perdunov 12y ago
      Isn't releasing a free product also predatory pricing? No "free" software is actually free. The developers have just used some resources from elsewhere to create the product (spare time while earning a living from a daytime job also counts), and then released it for free gaining an unfair advantage over those who try to make the product development self-sustained. This is purely cheating or predatory pricing.

mrda 12y ago

The problem with these licences is that they prevent your software from being used in laregr software projects and distributions. Bottom line is: This is cute, this should be sensible, but it makes those people whose job it is to build software systems difficult, and what it means is that your software, no matter how good it is, won't be used. Instead use a http://opensource.org/licenses http://opensource.org/licenses licence.