Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Evil, or why Douglas Crockford is harmful to Free Software

apebox.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 187 posts

Re: Evil, or why Douglas Crockford is harmful to Free Software

#51

Post by thedudemabry »

mmahemoff wrote: post #40

A license like this has two red flags. I previously worked in a programme providing corporate governance of open source. It's a fairly big industry with companies like Black Duck helping companies manage their legal risks, and licenses like this aren't popular. Firstly, it's non-standard. As others have said, it's the author's right to make it non-standard, but I don't recommend people try that unless there's a reall…

Well said. And while I absolutely agree with several other posters that Crockford has free reign to define the terms of use of his product, he didn't choose the most effective terms for what we all assume is his goal: spreading the use of json.

A license is like a piece of code that binds to a system of laws at runtime. Effective license terms, like effective code, work within the problem domain and avoid ambiguity where it is likely to cause problems. His license compiles, but can throw runtime exceptions depending on context.

Re: Evil, or why Douglas Crockford is harmful to Free Software

#52

Post by icebraining »

scotty79 wrote: post #25

I read that you can't distribute code that has no license. Why can't you do that? Will someone punish you for that if author won't sue anybody? Will his descendants inherit the right to sue distributor?

IANAL

I read that you can't distribute code that has no license.

Why can't you do that?

Because copyright law says so - it reserves the right to copy to the author.

Will someone punish you for that if author won't sue anybody?

I believe depends on whether you fall under a criminal or civil violation. http://www.chillingeffects.org/copyright/faq.cgi#QID885

Will his descendants inherit the right to sue distributor?

Yes, it's pretty common for estates (of which the descendants are usually the executors) to sue distributors.

Re: Evil, or why Douglas Crockford is harmful to Free Software

#53

Post by jballanc »

Sometimes I find the cognitive dissonance in the software community to be as entertaining to watch as that in various religious sects...

Software types are famously inclined toward libertarian views. An oft repeated mantra on HN is "let the market decide". Yet, here we have myriad complaints about a decision the market has made.

What I particularly love about the Open Source/Free Software world is that it is a market in the truest sense. Barriers to entry are extremely low and, while there aren't necessarily dollars to throw around, consumers vote with their time and attention, both quantities arguably more valuable than currency. It is interesting to watch this market choose benevolent dictatorship models of governance over more democratic rule. It is intriguing to see reinvented wheels succeed for seemingly inconsequential reasons.

And, in this case, it is rather informative to observe how expediency wins out, even to the potential detriment of the very consumers who have made this choice. Reimplementing the code in question would require work. Clarifying or requesting a change of licensing terms would require work. Instead, the "market" (many, many OSS projects in this case) has chosen the preexisting solution that contains a potential time bomb.

If I didn't know any better, I'd almost say that this article is a veiled call for regulation. It's almost as if the market, left to its own devices, doesn't always make the best long-term decisions when short-term benefit weighs in opposition.

The world of Open Source/Free Software really is fascinating to watch...

Re: Evil, or why Douglas Crockford is harmful to Free Software

#54

Post by chris_wot »

runningdogx wrote: post #28

There is no place for humor or overly subjective terms like "evil" in a software license or other legal document, and the problem with Douglas Crockford's license is that he fails to understand that. That is, unless his intent is to keep every entity with sane lawyers from using his software. I don't think that's his intent. He said he wants to keep people without a sense of humor from using his software, but sane la…

Listen, the clause is so ridiculously vague as to be unenforcable.

However, there is one way of looking at it that might not be legally objectionable. If you consider evil to be contrary to the good functioning of a civil society, then you could say that any act of evil is against the laws if this society. In which case the clause is legally enforceable, but completely unnecessary as no contract can stipulate a party undertake an illegal act.

Re: Evil, or why Douglas Crockford is harmful to Free Software

#55

Post by archangel_one »

andreasvc wrote: post #42
archangel_one wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, those diligent users can reimplement the software if they don't like it. It's only the implementation that's got that clause, not the spec. Obviously that's not easy for them to do, but nobody says they have to use his implementation if they don't like the terms it's licensed under.

You're painting a picture of a way out that doesn't exist for most people (reverse straw man?). When it's about a library on which a lot of software depends then the common non-programmer has had absolutely no choice about this and cannot re-implement either.

Right, but that's not the fault of the original author. He licensed his code a particular way, and everyone else has the choice to either use it or not. I don't like the attitude of blaming him simply because lots of other people came to depend on it without realising that it's less free than some of them might have liked.

Re: Evil, or why Douglas Crockford is harmful to Free Software

#57

Post by rmc »

chris_wot wrote: post #54
runningdogx wrote: post #28

There is no place for humor or overly subjective terms like "evil" in a software license or other legal document, and the problem with Douglas Crockford's license is that he fails to understand that. That is, unless his intent is to keep every entity with sane lawyers from using his software. I don't think that's his intent. He said he wants to keep people without a sense of humor from using his software, but sane la…

Listen, the clause is so ridiculously vague as to be unenforcable. However, there is one way of looking at it that might not be legally objectionable. If you consider evil to be contrary to the good functioning of a civil society, then you could say that any act of evil is against the laws if this society. In which case the clause is legally enforceable, but completely unnecessary as no contract can stipulate a party…

Listen, the clause is so ridiculously vague as to be unenforcable.

You hope.

If you consider evil to be contrary to the good functioning of a civil society, then you could say that any act of evil is against the laws if this society. In which case the clause is legally enforceable, but completely unnecessary as no contract can stipulate a party undertake an illegal act.

Which countries laws are we dealing with here? :P

e.g. I believe lots of US employee laws would be very illegal in EU.

Re: Evil, or why Douglas Crockford is harmful to Free Software

#58

Post by shlomme »

markokocic wrote: post #12

I don't understand. The guy complain that json license is not "Free" in the FSF sense of "Free". So what? Not all licenses has to be FSF or FSF compatible. How is it harmful to FSF is the license of some piece of code is not compatible with GPL? Guess what, I can't use GPL in my projects, because it's not compatible with the kind of license I release my programs. You can't use this software because it's not comapatib…

He complains about the license not being DFSG-compatible, which is different. The DSFG are a set of very simple rules to decide if some piece of software is eligible for inclusion in Debian.

Re: Evil, or why Douglas Crockford is harmful to Free Software

#59

Post by apgwoz »

jasim wrote: post #14

The article is in bad taste. The title even more. If you don't like Crockford's license you are at liberty to write that code yourself. Please don't call people who contribute a great deal to advancing computing (Free Software or not) names like 'harmful to Free Software'. Even if there is genuine concern in the license and its usage in Free Software, it should be raised by pointing to the code and the license, not b…

I think you're missing the larger picture here. If someone like IBM or Apple, or Google were to accidentally use a license like this (which is otherwise free) they could waste millions defending it in court due to some lawsuit. How would that look for Free Software? Probably even worse! "Google sued for using Free Software" -- Headline on the NY Times.

Re: Evil, or why Douglas Crockford is harmful to Free Software

#60

Post by jkn »

jasim wrote: post #44
runningdogx wrote: post #28

There is no place for humor or overly subjective terms like "evil" in a software license or other legal document, and the problem with Douglas Crockford's license is that he fails to understand that. That is, unless his intent is to keep every entity with sane lawyers from using his software. I don't think that's his intent. He said he wants to keep people without a sense of humor from using his software, but sane la…

I don't disagree to this premise. Yes, it could be an issue - but Douglas Crockford is not morally obligated to worry about it. His code, his license. When you use it, you accept the risks that come with it. The post could have made a sane argument that the license is ambiguous and should be avoided in Free Software. But it focused on the author and made unjustifiable personal remarks. Not cool. The author also seem…

You might as well say that Douglas Crockford is not morally obligated to be nice. Yes, I suppose he is entitled to behaving in ways that are harmful to Free Software, but we are also entitled to criticize him for that. The post criticizes both the license and Crockford's use of the license, focusing on the latter because licenses, like guns, are not harfmul in themselves.

You might argue that Crockford's contributions to Free Software outweigh the nuisance of his license, but to people who won't use his code because of the license (as you propose they do if they don't like it), his contributions are, sadly, rather worthless.

As for your last point, sure, Richard Stallman is arguably harmful to the Free Non-Copyleft Software movement, if such a thing exists. Is that a bad thing? I don't think there is a consensus in the Free Software community. Some OpenBSD folks certainly hate it...

Post reply on HN