>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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
It sounds like a good idea. But it would not meet the FSF definition of Free Software, nor the OSI definition of Open Source. So you wouldn't be able to include it in many open source software packages.
"malware"/"spyware" is complicated. Does Ubuntu count as spyware? They have some integration with Amazon web shops. Does Debian? It has a "popularity contest" for packages ( http://popcon.debian.org/ ).
I'm supposing that you meant "includes actual malware". Here's a definition:
Malware, for a given user and computer, is installed software that, in the absence of constraints (such as imperfect information, limited time and ability), would not be installed.
This defines malware as a space rather than a binary, but I'm fine with that.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Im looking through the OSI definition (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?
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.
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.
Nah, he knows that this is problematic. See link posted by evacchi, he gives out additional licenses to companies that ask. It's highly annoying for all open-source projects of course, since they have to keep an extra license on just these few files. So they can't combine it with GPL, ...
The full legend/joke says Douglas Crockford (the inventor of Json) receives every year a request from an lawyer at IBM asking "What do you mean with 'evil'?". So every year DC returns a letter to this lawyer saying "I hereby authorize IBM to use my software for evil".
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)
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.
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
It's like pulling someone into a pile of crap at the expense of going into a pile of crap yourself.
With this kind of reasoning the person who is pulled into the pile of crap deserves it.
I see lots of free projects that could have made their authors rich, but didn't. Instead the authors keep enjoying their daytime jobs.
Actually, speaking of "deserving the business", the question should be why is the thing free? Why won't the 'altruistic jerk' set a fair price? It may be because in this case they would simply lose the competition, and the only way they can make it is by seducing the customers with free stuff. So who does actually deserve the business and who doesn't?
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.
50 comments
[ 103 ms ] story [ 1107 ms ] threadThat "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.
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.
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.
Trademarks are expensive and take effort, though, so this is not a model for small maintainers.
"malware"/"spyware" is complicated. Does Ubuntu count as spyware? They have some integration with Amazon web shops. Does Debian? It has a "popularity contest" for packages ( http://popcon.debian.org/ ).
Can you come up with a definition of "malware" that excludes actual malware and excludes the Debian popularity contest?
Malware, for a given user and computer, is installed software that, in the absence of constraints (such as imperfect information, limited time and ability), would not be installed.
This defines malware as a space rather than a binary, but I'm fine with that.
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.
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.
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.
Would it be Discrimination Against evil Fields of Endeavor?
"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.
see e.g.: http://wonko.com/post/jsmin-isnt-welcome-on-google-code
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)
It looks about the same except that this license will see you as a jerk if you don't play nice.
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.
Feeding your family or paying rent seem to be real jerk moves then I guess.
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.
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.
You'll never take this down... ever?
It is a bunch of opinion statements.
It is a non-lawyer attempting cuteness... and failing.
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.
Do you think it is an okay thing, applied to either brick and mortar or software?
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.
With this kind of reasoning the person who is pulled into the pile of crap deserves it.
I see lots of free projects that could have made their authors rich, but didn't. Instead the authors keep enjoying their daytime jobs.
Actually, speaking of "deserving the business", the question should be why is the thing free? Why won't the 'altruistic jerk' set a fair price? It may be because in this case they would simply lose the competition, and the only way they can make it is by seducing the customers with free stuff. So who does actually deserve the business and who doesn't?
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 licence.