On 03/08/2015 06:34 PM, Mike Bayer wrote: > > > Ian Wells <ijw.ubu...@cack.org.uk> wrote: > >> With apologies for derailing the question, but would you care to tell us >> what evil you're planning on doing? I find it's always best to be informed >> about these things. > > All of us, every day, do lots of things that someone is going to think is > evil. From eating meat, to living various kinds of lifestyles, to supporting > liberal or conservative causes, to just living in a certain country, to > using Windows or other “non-free” operating systems, to top-posting, makes > you evil to someone; to lots of people, in fact. This is why a blanket > statement like “do no evil” is pretty much down to two choices, A. based on > some arbitrary, undefined notion of “evil” in which case nobody can use the > software, or B. based on the user’s own subjective view of “evil” which > means the phrase is just a humorous frill. Maybe authors add this phrase as > a means to limit the use of their software only to those communities where > such a statement is patently ridiculous (e.g., not publicly held > corporations). > > but also given that “evil” can be almost anything, I don’t think it’s > reasonable > that users would have to report on their intended brand of “evil”.
tl;dr: Debian considers the "do no evil" license non-free. I second the above. Also, because the above (ie: it's impossible to clearly define what evil means), but also because we have all decided to not discriminate any kind of use or users (even the most evil ones), Debian consider the "do no evil" licensing as non-free (and therefore, not fit for an upload in Debian main). We have contacted the Json.org author multiple times, and never we had a positive reply, only some jokes (like: "Oh, do you really want to do evil?" kinds of reply). To illustrate how stupid the "do no evil" license is, let me provide another example of a stupid license. It's called the "dontbeadick" license, and it is a real life example. We use it in Debian to train wanabe Debian Developers (asking them to comment this license). [Please don't be offended when reading the license below, I'm not the author of these lines, and I would have preferred that this license never existed.] DON'T BE A DICK PUBLIC LICENSE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION 1. Do whatever you like with the original work, just don't be a dick. Being a dick includes - but is not limited to - the following instances: 1a. Outright copyright infringement - Don't just copy this and change the name. 1b. Selling the unmodified original with no work done what-so-ever, that's REALLY being a dick. 1c. Modifying the original work to contain hidden harmful content. That would make you a PROPER dick. 2. If you become rich through modifications, related works/services, or supporting the original work, share the love. Only a dick would make loads off this work and not buy the original work's creator(s) a pint. 3. Code is provided with no warranty. Using somebody else's code and bitching when it goes wrong makes you a DONKEY dick. Fix the problem yourself. A non-dick would submit the fix back. While this might look fun to begin with, in fact, it is not. If you look closer, this license restricts the rights to: - fork (1a: renaming without change) - redistribute (1.b: selling without work) - modify (1c: you can't add hidden harmful content) - modify (again) (2.: you must buy beer to the original author) Besides this, the examples in the first sections are just examples, and the restrictions "is not limited to" them. At the end, IMO the author of the license is really what he doesn't want others to be: he tried to be funny, but it's not funny at all. Think a 2nd time, and apply the same kinds of reasoning to the "do no evil" licensing. It's a similar approach, which makes the whole license non-free. It's just not as much obvious when reading it as with the don't be a dick license, but it's the same problem: it restricts the rights to use the software as it pleases you, which makes the software non-free (restriction of the use of the software to only non-evil use). In Debian, the DFSG states : 5. The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons. 6. The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. The JSLint license is discriminating against the evil group, and discriminate against evil use. The "do no evil" section of the JSLint license doesn't respect what every Debian Developer has signed for (ie: the DFSG), and is therefore not fit for an upload in Debian. Let's be more specific now, just for fun... What if I believe jslint is being evil with me, because it votes no to my patches? Last thing: in USA, there's the 2nd amendment, which protects free speech. There's zero restriction to freedom of speech (except call for murder and/or terrorism). Let's keep in mind that we should have the same kind of enforcement with free software and let's refuse any kind of restriction of use (even the evil ones). Anyway, you understood me: please *never* use this Expat/MIT license with the "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil." additional clause. This is non-free software, which I will *never* be able to upload to Debian (and Canonical guys will have the same issue). Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)  https://www.debian.org/social_contract __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev