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

License to Use JSLint for Evil

web.archive.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–46 of 46 posts

Re: License to Use JSLint for Evil

#41

Post by skissane »

zarzavat wrote: post #39
MaxBarraclough wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That’s why attribution requirements are stupid. Of course, as a matter of politeness and ethics, one ought to acknowledge the work of others you build upon. But elevating it from an informal principle to a formal legal requirement puts people in the unpleasant position of having either to deal with endless and ever-changing attribution bureaucracy, or just ignore it all and hope nobody ever complains (or sues). Zero attribution licenses don’t do that to people.

Re: License to Use JSLint for Evil

#42

Post by JoshTriplett »

pessimizer wrote: post #28
JoshTriplett wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And many people chose not to use it as a result, despite having no desire to do "evil". People can certainly license software however they like, and other people can complain about that and build replacements, as JSHint did.

> It's a linter, it doesn't require being incorporated into people's projects.

Many things do want to depend on tools that process source code, such as bundlers, IDEs, transpilers, and similar.

Re: License to Use JSLint for Evil

#43

Post by pabs3 »

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?

If the Software Freedom Conservancy vs Vizio lawsuit is won, then anyone who is the recipient of copylefted software (GPL etc) will be able to go to court for compliance.

https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html

Re: License to Use JSLint for Evil

#44

Post by im3w1l »

pessimizer wrote: post #29
im3w1l wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It will deter orgs large enough to be worth suing. It will not deter individuals who click ok on everything without reading nor startups that play fast and loose.

Re: License to Use JSLint for Evil

#45

Post by no-s »

throwawayboise wrote: post #37
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.

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

I read Crockford’s “JavaScript: The Good Parts” and had a similar experience, though it was more like an epiphany. I thought back to all the other disdainful language criticisms I’d embraced over the previous 30 years and realized I’d been a fool all along about a lot of things…

Later I met Crockford after a JSON talk and we had an excellent discussion. But - he autographed my friend’s book with a personalized admonition to do no evil..

Re: License to Use JSLint for Evil

#46

Post by MaxBarraclough »

zarzavat wrote: post #39
MaxBarraclough wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Nobody actually pays attention to open source software licences whatever you write in them. They're just window dressing.

Plainly untrue. Various companies (including Google and Apple) have strong opinions on the GPL licences, especially the GPLv3.

Many of us see it as a red flag when a seemingly Free and Open Source project turns out to use a licence approved by neither the FSF nor the OSI.

> Who isn't violating the attribution requirements of 1000-odd npm dependencies?

You may be right that much web frontend development is a sloppy free-for-all with no regard for compliance and no contact with the legal department, but not all software is developed on this basis.

Post reply on HN