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

141–150 of 187 posts

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

#141

Post by Evbn »

theorique wrote: post #94
jahewson wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's sad that Crockford thinks that causing this kind of hassle to diligent users of his software is funny. Ha ha, stupid user, you took the legally binding joke which I inserted into a legally binding license seriously, hahah you sooo funny. Yeah, a real barrel of laughs. Never mind that licensing law is a lot less flexible than contract law, in which unreasonable terms are readily removed.

Seems like a real, major user requested a clarification / amendment to their software license in order to use the software. Crockford granted such a clarification / amendment. I don't see the problem here. Software is written and licensed by people, and is susceptible to their quirks and foibles.

The solution for the anti-joke contingent is to organize a mass flood of exemption requests for Crockford to deal with.

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

#142

Post by Evbn »

scott_s wrote: post #123
fourstar wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Glad to see Crockford making jokes there. Unfortunately after leaving a comment on a recent picture update on his Google+ profile (in good humor), he banned me from his circles, unshared everything with me, and removed the comment. I still look up to him though.

Humor from strangers does not transfer well. What seemed to be in good humor to you, may have been obnoxious to him.

Aaaaand this is why the "evil" clause is problematic.

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

#143

Post by sbuk »

WayneDB wrote: post #90
archangel_one wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe we don't have to blame him for anything, but we can still have the opinion that he's a childish asshole.

Arguably the same can be said for people that feel the urge to do so, doubly so for calling it "evil".

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

#144

Post by tspiteri »

rmc wrote: post #71
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…

"Free" for the FSF does not mean "compatible with GPL". Lots of GPL in-compatible licences are "Free" according to the FSF. Here's a whole list of "GPL-Incompatible Free Software Licenses": http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibl... Some notable ones: Apache Licence, BSD licence, etc.

The BSD licence is not GPL-incompatible. It is the original BSD licence which is GPL-incompatible, because it has an advertising clause requiring all advertising material for a product to include a note for each contributor under that license.

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

#145

Post by Evbn »

irahul wrote: post #35
lmm wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a license that's misleadingly almost-free. It's like the old 4-term BSD license with the "obnoxious advertising clause".

> It's a license that's misleadingly almost-free. Like the GPL is misleadingly almost free? As in it's free but if you release software which uses GPL software, it is under GPL? I am not arguing about the meaning of free, I am arguing against your "it's a license that's misleadingly almost free". Just like GPL's terms doesn't make it non-free, "don't use it for evil" doesn't make it non-free. EDIT: I see people argui…

You can use GPL software to distribute proprietary software. Google does it all day long.

Don't write "use" when you mean something else entirely.

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

#146

Post by Evbn »

aw3c2 wrote: post #96
pooriaazimi wrote: post #69

Don't say "Free Software", please. Because you actually mean "FSF-compliant" license. Some people don't give the slightest damn what FSF or any other crazy institution has determined to be a "free" (as in thought/speech) software license. In my humble opinion, a true "free" software license is the kind of license that lets you do "whatever the fuck you want to do" with it - in other words, "public domain". GPL (whate…

GPL/BSD are "restrictive" to protect the freedom of the software. You cannot have freedom without having a rule for freedom. Free software is not anarchy software.

You accidentally repeated parent's mistake.

There is nothing restrictive in BSD at all. Proprietary shops love BSD.

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

#148

Post by Evbn »

ivansavz wrote: post #41

I disagree. While it //is// unprofessional to joke around with licensing, I think the author of the article (and some of the commenters her) seriously exaggerate the thread of a legal suit. Who will sue? EFF? Crockford? I am no expert in "license law", but I am sure a you-are-using-this-for-evil accusations would not stand a chance.

Crockford's heirs could sue. There is long established precedent of greedy heirs harassing the beneficiaries of their ancestors' largesse.

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

#149

Post by gavinlynch »

bad_user wrote: post #43
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…

People need to be aware that using childish clauses in licenses can have legal repercussions. This is not about "Free Software" or "Open Source" either, because that same clause can get you in trouble even if it comes in the EULA of a proprietary product. The article was itself childish, but then again, it's a personal blog, not some kind of official statement. > it discourages people from contributing True, but my p…

>> "People need to be aware that using childish clauses in licenses can have legal repercussions."

Please name a case.

Name one single case where this holds true.

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

#150

Post by Evbn »

Kilimanjaro wrote: post #122

To use Javascript you don't need a license. Javascript object literals are part of Javascript, ergo, you don't need a license. Json, which is the string representation of a javascript object literal for transmission and storage, doesn't need a license either. I can do whatever the fuck I want with JSON and nobody can touch me. Look, I can even use it for EVIL if I want! So sue me.

Json isn't copyrighted. Json parsing libraries are.
Post reply on HN