

The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil - bootload
http://wonko.com/post/jsmin-isnt-welcome-on-google-code

======
simonw
The problem here is simple: there is no legal definition of good and evil,
which means that the final decision on whether or not you can use the software
belongs to Douglas Crockford, the maintainer. If one person can arbitrarily
decide whether or not you can use a piece of software, it's not Open Source.

~~~
philwelch
I'm not sure that's how the license would be enforced, in practice. There's no
automatic right for any party to dictate the meaning of undefined or unclear
terms.

~~~
rmc
Yes, perhaps it's up to a judge to decide what "good"/"evil" means, however
that still means there's 1 person who gets to decide whether or not you can
use the software, ergo, not open source.

------
bootload
_"... When I put the reference implementation onto the website, I needed to
put a software license on it. I looked up all the licenses that are available,
and there were a lot of them. I decided the one I liked the best was the MIT
license, which was a notice that you would put on your source, and it would
say: "you're allowed to use this for any purpose you want, just leave the
notice in the source, and don't sue me." I love that license, it's really
good. ... So I added one more line to my license, which was: "The Software
shall be used for Good, not Evil." ..."_

I was using JSMin (py) today ~
<http://www.crockford.com/javascript/jsmin.html> wondering why there was no
installer and poking around I found this article. Seems the addition of
additional line in the MIT license gives lawyers headaches.

~~~
davidw
Not just lawyers - anyone sensible. It's not open source any more - you can't
restrict what open source is used for - and extremely vague.

DIY licenses are a bad idea. In this day and age you should probably pick
between MIT, Apache, LGPL and GPL, and maybe something like the Affero GPL for
open source, in order of how much they limit people using your code.

~~~
bootload
doesn't stop the code being used in google android though ~
[http://google.com/codesearch?q=%22The%20Software%20shall%20b...](http://google.com/codesearch?q=%22The%20Software%20shall%20be%20used%20for%20Good%2C%20not%20Evil.%22)
in _"git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/external/webkit.git› V8Binding› v8›
tools› jsmin.py"_ for example using this license ~
[http://google.com/codesearch/p?hl=en#N6Qhr5kJSgQ/V8Binding/v...](http://google.com/codesearch/p?hl=en#N6Qhr5kJSgQ/V8Binding/v8/LICENSE)

~~~
davidw
Maybe they just figured it's unenforceable BS and went ahead anyway.

------
shin_lao
I'd love to send Douglas a copy of Beyond Good and Evil.

[http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Good-Evil-Friedrich-
Nietzsche/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Good-Evil-Friedrich-
Nietzsche/dp/1453640207/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278572208&sr=8-3)

~~~
igravious
This software may only be used for purposes that are beyond good and evil.
Nietzsche: spiritual progenitor of the free software movement.

------
joe_bleau
Oh, I've seen something like this with a book ([http://www.amazon.com/Front-
Panel-Designing-Software-Interfa...](http://www.amazon.com/Front-Panel-
Designing-Software-Interfaces/dp/0879305282)) before: "It is the authors
preference that his book not be used by the military or the munitions
industry."

~~~
hugh3
At least that is specific. I've also used several pieces of (European)
software which forbid themselves from being used for the creation of nuclear
weapons.

~~~
ptomato
iTunes EULA has a clause stating that you're not allowed to use it for
“development, design, manufacture or production of missiles, or nuclear,
chemical or biological weapons.”

------
yock
The last thing free software needs is yet another dogmatic argument. Being
cute in your licensing damages the perception of free software because you're
essentially broadcasting the fact that you don't care how the rest of the
world works.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Hm. So the existing licenses are the Holy Scripture, and we should all bow
down to them? Write any software you like, but it has to have the Blessing
from Stallman?

This is rediculous.

~~~
yock
No, not at all. Licenses change all the time, both for the better and for the
worse. It isn't change that I'm challenging, but rather this particular
change.

I challenge anyone to defend the language that is the subject of this news
item, using clear, concise, and unambiguous language defending the terms
"good" and "evil" without offering your own definition. It cannot be done
because it requires a value judgment on the part of the reader, and not all
readers will share the same value judgment.

Simply put, "good" and "evil" mean different things to different people.
Therefore, they cannot be used as terms in a legal agreement without clear
definitions as to their meaning. Google has chosen, rightfully so, to simply
prohibit the language rather than debate their meaning.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
As mentioned elsewhere in this topic, so have all the other terms in the
license have slippery meanings.

In fact Good and Evil are extremes of behavior. The words are intended to
indicate obvious things. As the Justice said "you know it when you see it".

~~~
yock
The other terms in the license have the benefit of long-standing, generally
accepted legal definitions. I don't think you're going to find definitions for
"good" or "evil" in Black's.

------
ptomato
I'm not sure complete humorlessness is actually necessary to be an advocate of
Free Software(or whatever the trendy term is these days), but there certainly
seems to be a high degree of correlation.

------
guelo
I don't see how the license is not free. The loophole is it does not state
who's definition of evil applies. Therefore you can state that your software
is not evil and be done with it. If Mr Crockford decides to sue you you will
have a very easy defense.

~~~
dantheman
yeah, this same loophole can be used to determine who's definition of: "use,
copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense" etc

...

in other words, if we allow people to arbitrarily decide what a word means in
a license then the license means nothing..

~~~
hugh3
The difference being that judges are entirely happy to make precedent-setting
rulings on what "use, copy, modify" et cetera mean. I don't think any judge
would be willing to rule on whether a particular use of the software counts as
"evil".

Even if they're presented with a case where someone is using the software in
an _unambiguously_ evil way (like, I dunno, kidnapping small children to use
as sex slaves) then they probably still won't rule on that, because that
creates a precedent that a judge _can_ rule on whether something is good or
evil, creating difficult situations for future judges.

------
po
The problem is that evil doesn't care about your license.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
No, that's the solution from a legal standpoint. The license is not longer
vague.

------
aneth
A policy against vague restrictions in an open-source license seems sensible
to me. I appreciate Crockford's humor, and also that he freely offers
exceptions to the clause, since in end, it's silliness.

