
Don't Be a Jerk: The Open Source Software License - hippich
https://github.com/evantahler/Dont-be-a-Jerk
======
drrotmos
This reminds me of the JSON license, which includes a clause stating that "The
software shall be used for good, not evil."

That particular clause has caused quite a bit of headache for PHP package
maintainers, because technically it makes the license a non-open source
license, even though the rest of the license is just your bog standard
MIT/BSD-like license.

Long story short, don't write your own licenses.

~~~
belorn
Im looking through the OSI definition ([http://opensource.org/osd-
annotated](http://opensource.org/osd-annotated)) and wondering what clause
would break from a "for good, not evil" requirement.

Would it be Discrimination Against evil Fields of Endeavor?

~~~
rmc
Pretty much. The problem is how you define "good" and "evil"? Can the US
military use this software? Can a church that prints a document about
"traditional marriage" use this software? Can an anti-fascist group use it to
organise physical confrontation with far right groups? What does evil mean?
You'll need to ask a judge.

~~~
cbd1984
And the worst part is, the developer will likely refuse to see that there is,
or ever could be, a problem.

"It's _evil_ , fercryingoutloud! Don't do _evil_!

Everyone knows what _evil_ is!"

And it gets used, and that clause sits there, like a hidden dog turd, waiting
for someone to step in the wrong spot, and all of a sudden the developer and
their minions are up in arms about the user and _their_ minions, who are so
obviously _evil_ that there shouldn't even _be_ a discussion.

Because it's _evil_ , and _evil_ is self-evident.

Except it isn't. It really, really isn't.

~~~
detaro
Nah, he knows that this is problematic. See link posted by evacchi, he gives
out additional licenses to companies that ask. It's highly annoying for all
open-source projects of course, since they have to keep an extra license on
just these few files. So they can't combine it with GPL, ...

------
DannyBee
Sadly, the warranty disclaimer may not be valid in the US as a disclaimer of
warranties.

To be effective as a disclaimer of the implied warranty of merchantability, it
must mention merchantability. This is explicit UCC law in all 50 states
(warranty of fitness can be disclaimed without explicit reference to it).

The only way around tht is the next section, which states "Unless the
circumstances indicate otherwise, all implied warranties are excluded by
expressions like "as is," "with all faults" or other language which in common
understanding calls the buyer's attention to the exclusion of warranties and
makes plain that there is no implied warranty;"

This is why why licenses use the term "as-is", to avoid arguments about
whether it falls into the "makes plain" part.

Only a few courts have really considered the issue on something that is a
close call, because, as one contracts book i have put it: "Given the UCC has
explicitly approved language to disclaim implied warranties, it would be folly
to use anything else"

However, the cases i can find are split as to whether wording like this would
be plain enough language (among other things, using the term "offer" in that
sentence is a really bad idea, as it can arguably be read to say that he does
not sell warranties, instead of saying that there are no warranties)

------
kybernetyk
> I will never charge you to use, license, or obtain this software. Doing so
> would make me a jerk.

Feeding your family or paying rent seem to be real jerk moves then I guess.

~~~
davidw
There are other ways of feeding your family, and also, there are 'jerk' things
that you wouldn't do to feed your family, because they're immoral.

That said, I don't happen to view making proprietary software as immoral, and
I don't like the judgmental tone of what he wrote either.

And in any case, like drrotmos and others write, don't write your own license,
it's generally a bad idea.

~~~
dalke
Being able to sell one's software is part of the four essential freedoms of
free software. "Distributing free software is an opportunity to raise funds
for development. Don't waste it!" \-
[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html)

My software is distributed under the MIT license. I charge money for customers
to get access to the software. Therefore, I am a jerk under the terms of this
license.

The license claims that the software is both free and open source. It
understands neither philosophy.

------
makeitsuckless
Taking an intellectually lazy passive-aggressive jab at people who support in
free (as in freedom) software falls under the heading "being a jerk".

~~~
Potando
Isn't it a good thing to spread awareness of what can be a misleading topic?
Public arguments help to enlighten people who might be misled by the
confusingly overloaded word "freedom".

I appreciate the concept of GPL raising the bar too high for commercial
software to compete and it's been a great success in some areas. But that
isn't quite the same as freedom. It might be more accurately be called "forced
free" software.

------
pm24601
Its not a license. It doesn't say the "licensor" will not do something nor
does it say that the "licensee" can't do something.

It is a bunch of opinion statements.

It is a non-lawyer attempting cuteness... and failing.

------
zck
So if I licence my code under this license, you get to do whatever you want --
including using the code in proprietary software -- but I have to provide
downloads of it forever? Seems like a downgrade over BSD or MIT licenses, if
you want a permissive license.

~~~
Athas
It's not really a license at that point, as I don't think you can impose
obligations upon yourself that easily - at least not ones that have legal
weight. This seems more like a statement of intent, which is nice I guess.

But still, don't write your own licenses. There is no point, and if your
software is succesful, at some point someone somewhere will have headaches
over whether your license really gives them the legal permission they need.

------
thomasfl
I recommend using the "Do What the Fuck You Want to Public License" (WTFPL).
The simplest license there is.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL)

~~~
awalGarg
<3 WTFPL. Also see
[http://dev.bukkit.org/licenses/2977-idgaf-v1-0-license/](http://dev.bukkit.org/licenses/2977-idgaf-v1-0-license/)
;)

------
Animats
I'd like a standard license which is like the GPL, plus you can't bundle it
into anything with ads or spyware, interpreted broadly. This would prevent
things such as SourceForge's malware installer wrapper.

~~~
dguaraglia
Ohhh, now _there 's_ a good idea. I'd like something like MIT but with the
same clause. Maybe someone with a better grasp of legalese can draft a common
"don't use this in your shitty deceptive/scammy software" clause we can put at
the end of any other license?

~~~
DSMan195276
IANAL, but I believe you may find this is more trouble then it's worth. I like
the idea, but if you add such a clause to your software's license, then your
software won't be able to be included in other software that has the same
license as your's unless they _also_ amend their license (Which may be
impossible to do).

IE. If you license your code, project A, with 'GPLv3 + no-stupid-software',
and project B wants to use your code but they're licensed as 'GPLv3', legally
they can't because the licenses are incompatible. Project B would have to
amend their license to add the 'no-stupid-software' clause to make it
compatible with project A (But of course doing that may introduce other
license incompatibilities with other pieces of software, and projects with a
decent number of contributors probably don't have much of an option to change
license at this point).

I don't know if there would be any incompatibilities going the other
direction: You want to use project B in your software, and project B has the
license 'GPLv3' but your software has the license 'GPLv3 + no-stupid-
software'. I _think_ that should be ok, assuming that clause doesn't conflict
with anything already in the GPL, but again, IANAL.

------
flipcoder
> I will never take down or start charging for what is available today.

You'll never take this down... ever?

------
Argorak
This is more resembling a manifest then a license.

------
mrda
The problem with these licences is that they prevent your software from being
used in laregr software projects and distributions.

Bottom line is: This is cute, this should be sensible, but it makes those
people whose job it is to build software systems difficult, and what it means
is that your software, no matter how good it is, won't be used.

Instead use a [http://opensource.org/licenses](http://opensource.org/licenses)
licence.

------
BasDirks
Why not formulate this positively, ie. "Be a Champ"? It would get rid of the
passive aggressive stink. Or was that the point?

------
warmwaffles
How is this different than [http://www.dbad-license.org/](http://www.dbad-
license.org/)

~~~
im3w1l
>Being a dick includes - but is not limited to - the following instances:

That "is not limited too" sounds scary. I would hesitate to use software under
that license. So I guess that is the big difference between the licenses: One
allows you to do pretty much whatever you want. The other allows you to be
sued for pretty much whatever the author wants.

~~~
lmm
This one does so too, just less explicitly. It ends with "don't be a jerk",
and the rest of it contains examples of things that would make you a jerk, but
there's nothing that says those are the _only_ ways to be a jerk.

~~~
im3w1l
My IANAL interpretation is that the "don't be a jerk" is not intended to be a
clause of the contract.

A few things point to this interpretation.

* All other clauses clauses start with >

* It is followed by "enjoy your free software", which is clearly not intended to be mandatory

* Your interpretation is contradicted by the two instances of "You don't have to, but not doing so would make you a jerk." Those instances are examples of thing that _do_ make you a jerk but _are_ nevertheless allowed.

------
perdunov
A guy who puts out something for free is a jerk.

Why?

Because there can be another guy who has tried to make a living from selling a
product in the same niche - a high quality product for a reasonable price.

And the 'altruistic jerk' has just ruined the business of the good guy turning
the niche into a monopoly of the free crap.

~~~
Potando
If you consider the purpose of industry as being to make sellers rich, then
yes. But if the purpose is to make consumers better off overall, then no, he's
not being a jerk at all. The guy who produces software too inefficiently to
compete with the free one shouldn't be subsidized by all the users. I am that
guy, I do worry about open source software encroaching on my niche. But I
don't blame the authors for stealing my customers!

~~~
perdunov
Are you familiar with the concept of predatory pricing
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing))?

Do you think it is an okay thing, applied to either brick and mortar or
software?

~~~
Potando
Predatory pricing doesn't benefit consumers overall, so if I'm most interested
in their wellbeing, I don't think it's an OK thing.

~~~
perdunov
Isn't releasing a free product also predatory pricing?

No "free" software is actually free. The developers have just used some
resources from elsewhere to create the product (spare time while earning a
living from a daytime job also counts), and then released it for free gaining
an unfair advantage over those who try to make the product development self-
sustained. This is purely cheating or predatory pricing.

------
yitchelle
For my understanding, can someone explain to me how this license is different
from a public domain license?

It looks about the same except that this license will see you as a jerk if you
don't play nice.

~~~
Argorak
No one actually ever checked whether it even has the slightest chance to hold
up in court.

Neither "free" nor "open source" are strict terms in a legal sense, the rest
is a non-exhaustive set of examples.

It's probably never of any practical issue for the developer, as they don't
care enough, but for people that actually have to audit their code bases for
legal issues, this thing is a no-go.

