3 ms·
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
by 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 agoIANAL, 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 agoMozilla 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.