Evil, or why Douglas Crockford is harmful to Free Software • Hacker News Board

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

#161

Post by jlgreco » Fri, Nov 09, 2012, 4:33 PM UTC

Evbn wrote: post #148

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.

Seems like more of a case for copyright reform than the relicensing of a javascript verifier. (Unless we are only interested in putting a bandaid on symptoms I suppose.)

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

#162

Post by scott_s » Fri, Nov 09, 2012, 4:36 PM UTC

Evbn wrote: post #142

scott_s wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Perhaps, but there is a key difference. The above example was said to a particular person about a particular thing (which I infer by the fact it was posted on a picture). The "evil" clause is a joke thrown out into the wild, directed at no one in particular. In other words, the above example is personal, the "evil" clause is not.

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

#163

Post by noonespecial » Fri, Nov 09, 2012, 4:36 PM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #49

noonespecial wrote: post #24

This non-Free license is intended to mock people who take licensing seriously. It seems to be working. (Though I might add a "too" in front of seriously). Sometimes ridiculous things need mocking. (And just for the record, I do fully expect future generations to find our preoccupation with "owning" and "licensing" every stray line of text or bar of musical notes to be thoroughly ridiculous.)

As long as violating one without a profit motive can get an individual convicted to pay $1.5 million dollars, there's nothing ridiculous about taking licenses seriously. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas )

That's the satire. That's the joke. It's like an insane bit of legal performance art. The fact that you actually do have to take it seriously is the punch line.

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

#164

Post by markokocic » Fri, Nov 09, 2012, 5:05 PM UTC

jballanc wrote: post #136

markokocic wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do I understand correctly that you think that outlawing creation of custom licenses besides the chosen and already existing few will solve the perceived problem? What's the next step, outlawing forks, since there are already enough projects? And why do you see the very existence of the library with "no evil" clause as a market failure? Is that some people think that it's basic human right to be allowed to do evil? Do…

Do you have a start up? Do you hope that you will some day be able to make an exit with that start up? Are you willing to entertain a buy-out by a larger corporation as a possible exit? If yes, then as much as you (the hacker/startup founder) might not care or have a second thought about licenses like this, you should keep in mind that your potential purchaser almost definitely will. Also, just for the record, I'm ac…

I completely agree with you here. People should take care about licenses of the software they use, especially in a commercial setup, for all the reasons you stated.

But, you read the license, you decide if you are going to use it or not. That's it. If you are not sure, just don't use it. Use something else if available. Or build your own.

What I don't understand is the basis on which some people complain about the authors choice of the license, and feel offended by his license choice.

edit: s/started/stated/

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

#165

Post by tptacek » Fri, Nov 09, 2012, 5:05 PM UTC

monochromatic wrote: post #124

tptacek wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, just to be clear, your take is that the authors of software are not in fact entitled to use whatever license they please?

Obviously they are, and I don't think anyone here is arguing otherwise. Are you focusing on that point because it's the only one that makes this seem acceptable? The question is whether it is harmful to free software to put unfunny non-jokes like this into licenses. The answer is "yes, it is."

No, it isn't. It is harmful for free software projects to blindly incorporate software with incompatible licenses. It is not harmful to write software with incompatible licenses. Most software written is incompatible with Debian. With very few exceptions (for instance, the sole-sourced drivers to popular peripherals), none of it actively harms the project.

Debian is not entitled to Douglas Crockford's work and therefore Crockford cannot harm Debian through incompatibility. Someone else can write a replacement JSON library; it's an intern-level project.

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

#166

Post by bad_user » Fri, Nov 09, 2012, 5:10 PM UTC

benatkin wrote: post #153

bad_user wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your argument, however I don't agree that the GPL is un-free . First of all, there's a clear distinction between the GPL and this modified MIT license - the GPL was written with the help of actual lawyers and it's a solid license that can stand on its own in a court of law. If you think that the GPL gives you certain privileges or takes away some freedoms, then it's actually easy to verify that by simply…

The GPL says plainly that it shall not be modified. I find that equally worrying. What if I save a word wrapped version of it to a file?

You're making a confusion between the content and the distribution format.

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

#167

Post by markokocic » Fri, Nov 09, 2012, 5:11 PM UTC

lmm wrote: post #103

irahul wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

On the terminology side: language is about communication, and there is a broad consensus on the meaning of "free" in terms of free software, exemplarized by the FSF's defnition, the OSI open source definition, and the DFSG. None of these definitions is identical to the others, and no doubt there are edge cases that would fall under one but not another, but neither the GPL nor Crockford's license is one of them; under…

If it were really established that in software free means "Free" the way FSF defines it, then we would not have this 100+ messages discussion here arguing what is free, and in which context.

Maybe if would be easier if instead of "free" we started using more precise terms like Free(c)FSF, $Free, or name actual licenses, since each one goes under some assumptions.

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

#168

Post by fmoralesc » Fri, Nov 09, 2012, 5:11 PM UTC

dpark wrote: post #119

aw3c2 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cannot have freedom without having a rule for freedom. Of course you can. Freedom is the lack of restrictions. I think you're confusing freedom with rights, which do indeed need protection. An argument could be made that what the GPL attempts to do is assert a right to the source code which they protect with restrictions to the developer's freedom. (Just as the right to life is protected with restrictions to th…

> Freedom is the lack of restrictions.

That's just the negative sense of freedom. People mean sometimes a different sense of "freedom" , where to be free to do something implies rights, which then implies duties.

See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/

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

#169

Post by tzs » Fri, Nov 09, 2012, 5:22 PM UTC

thenomad wrote: post #21

The key issue here seems to be whether the "good not evil" clause is in any way legally enforcible. If it's not, it's a bit of harmless fun. If it is, then potentially anyone using software licensed under the license discussed in the article is in some serious trouble, and the article itself has merit. So, any lawyers around who can give us a definitive answer to that one? Sadly, all the lawyers I know specialise in…

(Not a lawyer, so don't take this as definitive)

Generally, ambiguity in a contract goes against the party that wrote the ambiguous clause. I believe that applies both in the US and the UK (and I'd expect nearly anywhere else whose contract law arose out of English common law).

Based on that, I'd expect someone trying to enforce a "good, not evil" clause to have a tough time.

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

#170

Post by lmm » Fri, Nov 09, 2012, 5:34 PM UTC

markokocic wrote: post #167

lmm wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the terminology side: language is about communication, and there is a broad consensus on the meaning of "free" in terms of free software, exemplarized by the FSF's defnition, the OSI open source definition, and the DFSG. None of these definitions is identical to the others, and no doubt there are edge cases that would fall under one but not another, but neither the GPL nor Crockford's license is one of them; under…

If it were really established that in software free means "Free" the way FSF defines it, then we would not have this 100+ messages discussion here arguing what is free, and in which context. Maybe if would be easier if instead of "free" we started using more precise terms like Free(c)FSF, $Free, or name actual licenses, since each one goes under some assumptions.

My position depends on "free" being a broadly-applicable concept. If I'd said "Crockford's license is not DFSG-compatible" then the response would (quite rightly) have been "well, who cares, the DFSG is just Debian's set of arbitrary rules". The reason the line between free and non-free matters so much from a pragmatic perspective is that there is this consensus, the criteria for being included in Debian are (more-or-less) the same as those for getting free hosting on sourceforge, or for being able to use the OSI trademark, or...