License to Use JSLint for Evil • Hacker News Board

Re: License to Use JSLint for Evil

#31

Post by gabagool » Thu, Apr 14, 2022, 11:56 PM UTC

msdrigg wrote: post #7

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 looked it up and found this interesting read: https://jshint.com/relicensing-2020/

I read this and it is interesting. I get why asking JS Hint contributors to re-submit/approve their changes is clear of the Do No Evil clause.

But, I don't understand why all changes before that (from JS Lint Day 1 until it was forked into JS Hint) aren't subject to that same clause. Why is the Eclipse Foundation not subject to it?

Re: License to Use JSLint for Evil

#32

Post by azornathogron » Fri, Apr 15, 2022, 12:09 AM UTC

gabagool wrote: post #31

msdrigg wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I looked it up and found this interesting read: https://jshint.com/relicensing-2020/

I read this and it is interesting. I get why asking JS Hint contributors to re-submit/approve their changes is clear of the Do No Evil clause. But, I don't understand why all changes before that (from JS Lint Day 1 until it was forked into JS Hint) aren't subject to that same clause. Why is the Eclipse Foundation not subject to it?

The Eclipse Foundation received their copy of JSLint under the MIT Expat license, not the default no-evil license.

> Meanwhile, the author of JSLint permitted the Eclipse Foundation to relicense a version of JSLint using the MIT Expat license so that it could be included in their project named Orion

Re: License to Use JSLint for Evil

#33

Post by jdmichal » Fri, Apr 15, 2022, 12:10 AM 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.

You're free to contact the owner(s) to negotiate a different license.

Re: License to Use JSLint for Evil

#34

Post by bromuro » Fri, Apr 15, 2022, 2:21 AM UTC

TheDong wrote: post #8

amp108 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure most licenses have a clause stating that, if one clause is deemed invalid, that fact doesn't render the entire thing null and void. Check with your lawyer when in doubt.

If you're curious about the specific license being referenced, it didn't have any clause like that: https://github.com/kaizhu256/jslint/blob/e188c37059ec66aedf9...

Thanks for sharing! It’s always nice listening to Douglas Crockford! What an interesting story about XML too :)

Re: License to Use JSLint for Evil

#35

Post by aaron695 » Fri, Apr 15, 2022, 2:21 AM 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.

No post body was provided.

Re: License to Use JSLint for Evil

#36

Post by gjs278 » Fri, Apr 15, 2022, 2:36 AM 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.

No post body was provided.

Re: License to Use JSLint for Evil

#37

Post by throwawayboise » Fri, Apr 15, 2022, 2:36 AM UTC

georgia_peach wrote: post #19

Doug Crockford is a ray of sunshine.

When I discovered Crockford, JavaScript was a joke language. You'd have been laughed out of the room if you suggested doing any kind of major project with it. It was something you used to validate a field, triggered on the "blur" event or something like that.

Crockford helped me see that there was more to JavaScript than it was being used for.

Re: License to Use JSLint for Evil

#38

Post by smegger001 » Fri, Apr 15, 2022, 2:44 AM UTC

michaelt wrote: post #16

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.

Who are all these people going to court and getting their software licenses enforced?

oracle, but i am fairly sure they are the sort of evil the licensor is thinking of

Re: License to Use JSLint for Evil

#39

Post by zarzavat » Fri, Apr 15, 2022, 3:09 AM UTC

MaxBarraclough wrote: post #20

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.

Right. It's probably the second worse place to put jokes, next to an employment contract.

Not really. Nobody actually pays attention to open source software licences whatever you write in them. They're just window dressing. Who isn't violating the attribution requirements of 1000-odd npm dependencies?

Re: License to Use JSLint for Evil

#40

Post by zarzavat » Fri, Apr 15, 2022, 3:14 AM 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's useful to others. It's just not useful to enterprises. This may be a positive or a negative depending on your intentions. You can read such a license as a kind of non-commercial use license.

In fact this is exactly the business model of the SQLite project. They have a "cute" public domain declaration and then they sell actual licenses for a fee to enterprises that want to distribute SQLite worldwide.