License to Use JSLint for Evil • Hacker News Board

Re: License to Use JSLint for Evil

#21

Post by colechristensen » Thu, Apr 14, 2022, 9:19 PM UTC

oh_sigh wrote: post #13

ascagnel_ wrote: post #2

Don't put clauses that rely on subjective concepts (like "good" and "evil") in your software licenses, because they can render the license impossible to enforce.

What effect do purely normative statements have on licenses? Because the original only says you should use it for Good, not that you must use it for Good.

Legal teams evaluate licenses and then ban the usage of your software because your attempts to be cute with license clauses pose an unacceptable business risk compared to the value you provide.

If you want your software to be usable, choose standard licenses and don’t modify them. Unless you find value entirely in creating something and not in being useful to others, be extremely careful with creative licensing.

Re: License to Use JSLint for Evil

#22

Post by im3w1l » Thu, Apr 14, 2022, 9:39 PM UTC

colechristensen wrote: post #21

oh_sigh wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What effect do purely normative statements have on licenses? Because the original only says you should use it for Good, not that you must use it for Good.

Legal teams evaluate licenses and then ban the usage of your software because your attempts to be cute with license clauses pose an unacceptable business risk compared to the value you provide. If you want your software to be usable, choose standard licenses and don’t modify them. Unless you find value entirely in creating something and not in being useful to others, be extremely careful with creative licensing.

It will not deter everyone from using it. Who will it deter and who will it not? Maybe that split is intentional.

Re: License to Use JSLint for Evil

#23

Post by oh_sigh » Thu, Apr 14, 2022, 9:44 PM UTC

colechristensen wrote: post #21

oh_sigh wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What effect do purely normative statements have on licenses? Because the original only says you should use it for Good, not that you must use it for Good.

Legal teams evaluate licenses and then ban the usage of your software because your attempts to be cute with license clauses pose an unacceptable business risk compared to the value you provide. If you want your software to be usable, choose standard licenses and don’t modify them. Unless you find value entirely in creating something and not in being useful to others, be extremely careful with creative licensing.

What is the business risk about disregarding a clause that says you merely should do something, with no carrot or stick if you do or don't?

Re: License to Use JSLint for Evil

#24

Post by colechristensen » Thu, Apr 14, 2022, 10:04 PM UTC

oh_sigh wrote: post #23

colechristensen wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legal teams evaluate licenses and then ban the usage of your software because your attempts to be cute with license clauses pose an unacceptable business risk compared to the value you provide. If you want your software to be usable, choose standard licenses and don’t modify them. Unless you find value entirely in creating something and not in being useful to others, be extremely careful with creative licensing.

What is the business risk about disregarding a clause that says you merely should do something, with no carrot or stick if you do or don't?

Copyright holders suing the licensee for a breach. Regardless of if the suit has merit there will be significant legal costs in defending against it and significant engineering costs in replacing the software, often quickly. Likewise there could be image issues for the company violating license terms.

Re: License to Use JSLint for Evil

#25

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Apr 14, 2022, 10:08 PM UTC

Uehreka wrote: post #18

tbranyen wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think Douglass Crockford didn't know that? He was being cheeky and doesn't care. This was also a huge pain point for JSHint and a lot of work went into undoing that by finding a single commit that didn't have the clause iirc.

I guess some people might find it cheeky or funny to build an entire software product that does something people want, and then make it impossible for most people to use by adding a silly licensing clause. I’d consider it a huge waste of time, but hey, it’s not my project.

[deleted]

Re: License to Use JSLint for Evil

#26

Post by the_pwner224 » Thu, Apr 14, 2022, 10:10 PM UTC

Uehreka wrote: post #18

tbranyen wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think Douglass Crockford didn't know that? He was being cheeky and doesn't care. This was also a huge pain point for JSHint and a lot of work went into undoing that by finding a single commit that didn't have the clause iirc.

I guess some people might find it cheeky or funny to build an entire software product that does something people want, and then make it impossible for most people to use by adding a silly licensing clause. I’d consider it a huge waste of time, but hey, it’s not my project.

It makes it impossible for most organizations to use, not for most people to use.

Re: License to Use JSLint for Evil

#27

Post by JoshTriplett » Thu, Apr 14, 2022, 10:33 PM UTC

the_pwner224 wrote: post #26

Uehreka wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess some people might find it cheeky or funny to build an entire software product that does something people want, and then make it impossible for most people to use by adding a silly licensing clause. I’d consider it a huge waste of time, but hey, it’s not my project.

It makes it impossible for most organizations to use, not for most people to use.

It also makes it impossible for Open Source projects to use and depend on. This isn't a companies-vs-people thing; people and projects who care about their users should not go "meh, whatever" about software licensing.

Re: License to Use JSLint for Evil

#28

Post by pessimizer » Thu, Apr 14, 2022, 10:52 PM UTC

JoshTriplett wrote: post #27

the_pwner224 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes it impossible for most organizations to use, not for most people to use.

It also makes it impossible for Open Source projects to use and depend on. This isn't a companies-vs-people thing; people and projects who care about their users should not go "meh, whatever" about software licensing.

Does Crockford care about Open Source?

People who aren't doing evil can use it. It's not compatible with FOSS. It's a linter, it doesn't require being incorporated into people's projects.

Making it proprietary would be more limiting, making it Free would also be limiting (in a good way imo.) He chose to make it his way.

Re: License to Use JSLint for Evil

#29

Post by pessimizer » Thu, Apr 14, 2022, 10:59 PM UTC

im3w1l wrote: post #22

colechristensen wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legal teams evaluate licenses and then ban the usage of your software because your attempts to be cute with license clauses pose an unacceptable business risk compared to the value you provide. If you want your software to be usable, choose standard licenses and don’t modify them. Unless you find value entirely in creating something and not in being useful to others, be extremely careful with creative licensing.

It will not deter everyone from using it. Who will it deter and who will it not? Maybe that split is intentional.

It will deter people who are accidentally telling on themselves.

Re: License to Use JSLint for Evil

#30

Post by dspillett » Thu, Apr 14, 2022, 11:11 PM UTC

Uehreka wrote: post #18

tbranyen wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think Douglass Crockford didn't know that? He was being cheeky and doesn't care. This was also a huge pain point for JSHint and a lot of work went into undoing that by finding a single commit that didn't have the clause iirc.

I guess some people might find it cheeky or funny to build an entire software product that does something people want, and then make it impossible for most people to use by adding a silly licensing clause. I’d consider it a huge waste of time, but hey, it’s not my project.

> but hey, it’s not my project.

The correct attitude to have.

If the licence is not compatible with our desired use we have the choice to move on our try negotiate different terms (or both: try for different terms and move on if compromise cannot be achieved).

No creator is under any obligation to make their stuff useful to us.