Re: [openstack-dev] [horizon] Do No Evil
On 09/03/15 15:54, Doug Hellmann wrote: Not everyone realizes that many of the distros run our tests against the packages they build, too. So our tool choices trickle downstream beyond our machines and our CI environment. In this case, because the tool is a linter, it seems like the distros wouldn't care about running it. But if it was some sort of test runner or other tool that might be used for functional tests, then they may well consider running it a requirement to validate the packages they create. For Fedora, we're also running horizons unit tests during package build. I would assume the same is true for other distros as well. Because our build system is not allowed to pull anything from the internet, we rely exclusively on already available software packages. Due to the license (good not evil), we can not have jslint as package. For the given reason, pulling it from the net during build doesn't work either. Another warning: users expect development as essential and to be available, because they might require them to CUSTOMIZE horizon. Matthias __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [horizon] Do No Evil
On 03/09/2015 01:59 PM, Michael Krotscheck wrote: On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 3:21 PM Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org mailto:z...@debian.org wrote: 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). So, to clarify: Does this include tooling used to build the software, but is not shipped with it? I suppose a similar example is using GCC (which is GPL'd) to compile something that's Apache licensed. To clarify, we are not shipping jshint/jslint with horizon, or requiring you to have it in order to run or build horizon. It's not used in the build process, the install process or at runtime. The only places where it is used is at the developer's own machine, when they install it and run it explicitly, to check their code, and on the gate, to check the code submitted for merging. In either case we are not distributing any software, so no copyright applies. One could argue that since the review process often causes a lot of stress both to the authors of the patches and to their reviewers, and so in fact we are using the software for evil... We are working on switching to ESLint, not strictly because of the license, but simply because it seems to be a better and more flexible tool, but this is not very urgent, and will likely take some time. -- Radomir Dopieralski __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [horizon] Do No Evil
On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 3:21 PM Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote: 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). So, to clarify: Does this include tooling used to build the software, but is not shipped with it? I suppose a similar example is using GCC (which is GPL'd) to compile something that's Apache licensed. Michael __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [horizon] Do No Evil
On Sun, Mar 08, 2015 at 11:19:10PM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote: 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. [snip] 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). The same is true of Fedora's licensing policies. Code under a license with this clause is not permitted in Fedora. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o-http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [horizon] Do No Evil
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015, at 08:52 AM, Radomir Dopieralski wrote: On 03/09/2015 01:59 PM, Michael Krotscheck wrote: On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 3:21 PM Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org mailto:z...@debian.org wrote: 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). So, to clarify: Does this include tooling used to build the software, but is not shipped with it? I suppose a similar example is using GCC (which is GPL'd) to compile something that's Apache licensed. To clarify, we are not shipping jshint/jslint with horizon, or requiring you to have it in order to run or build horizon. It's not used in the build process, the install process or at runtime. The only places where it is used is at the developer's own machine, when they install it and run it explicitly, to check their code, and on the gate, to check the code submitted for merging. In either case we are not distributing any software, so no copyright applies. Not everyone realizes that many of the distros run our tests against the packages they build, too. So our tool choices trickle downstream beyond our machines and our CI environment. In this case, because the tool is a linter, it seems like the distros wouldn't care about running it. But if it was some sort of test runner or other tool that might be used for functional tests, then they may well consider running it a requirement to validate the packages they create. That's not to say we need to let our tool choices be dictated by downstream users, just don't assume that because a tool isn't used as part of the runtime for a package that it isn't needed by those downstream users. Doug One could argue that since the review process often causes a lot of stress both to the authors of the patches and to their reviewers, and so in fact we are using the software for evil... We are working on switching to ESLint, not strictly because of the license, but simply because it seems to be a better and more flexible tool, but this is not very urgent, and will likely take some time. -- Radomir Dopieralski __ 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 __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [horizon] Do No Evil
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”. -- Ian. (Why yes, it *is* a Saturday morning.) On 6 March 2015 at 12:23, Michael Krotscheck krotsch...@gmail.com wrote: Heya! So, a while ago Horizon pulled in JSHint to do javascript linting, which is awesome, but has a rather obnoxious Do no evil licence in the codebase: https://github.com/jshint/jshint/blob/master/src/jshint.js StoryBoard had the same issue, and I've recently replaced JSHint with ESlint for just that reason, but I'm not certain it matters as far as OpenStack license compatibility. I'm personally of the opinion that tools used != code shipped, but I am neither a lawyer nor a liable party should my opinion be wrong. Is this something worth revisiting? Michael __ 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 __ 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 __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [horizon] Do No Evil
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 [1]: 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [horizon] Do No Evil
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. -- Ian. (Why yes, it *is* a Saturday morning.) On 6 March 2015 at 12:23, Michael Krotscheck krotsch...@gmail.com wrote: Heya! So, a while ago Horizon pulled in JSHint to do javascript linting, which is awesome, but has a rather obnoxious Do no evil licence in the codebase: https://github.com/jshint/jshint/blob/master/src/jshint.js StoryBoard had the same issue, and I've recently replaced JSHint with ESlint for just that reason, but I'm not certain it matters as far as OpenStack license compatibility. I'm personally of the opinion that tools used != code shipped, but I am neither a lawyer nor a liable party should my opinion be wrong. Is this something worth revisiting? Michael __ 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 __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [horizon] Do No Evil
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 8:15 AM 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. Me? What? Me? Evil? None, of course. Nope. Nothing at all. Do not look behind the curtain. If someone like BigEvilCorp wanted to install Horizon though, and saw that we used tooling that included a do no evil license in it? Lawyers get touchy, so do governments. There's some discussion on this here that suggests no small amount of consternation: https://github.com/jshint/jshint/issues/1234 The actual license in question. https://github.com/jshint/jshint/blob/master/src%2Fjshint.js (Why yes, it *is* a Saturday morning.) Anyone wanna hack on a bower mirror puppet module with me? Michael __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [horizon] Do No Evil
Possibly a better venue would be the legal-discuss@ mailing list? -- dims On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Michael Krotscheck krotsch...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 8:15 AM 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. Me? What? Me? Evil? None, of course. Nope. Nothing at all. Do not look behind the curtain. If someone like BigEvilCorp wanted to install Horizon though, and saw that we used tooling that included a do no evil license in it? Lawyers get touchy, so do governments. There's some discussion on this here that suggests no small amount of consternation: https://github.com/jshint/jshint/issues/1234 The actual license in question. https://github.com/jshint/jshint/blob/master/src%2Fjshint.js (Why yes, it *is* a Saturday morning.) Anyone wanna hack on a bower mirror puppet module with me? Michael __ 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 -- Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims __ 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
[openstack-dev] [horizon] Do No Evil
Heya! So, a while ago Horizon pulled in JSHint to do javascript linting, which is awesome, but has a rather obnoxious Do no evil licence in the codebase: https://github.com/jshint/jshint/blob/master/src/jshint.js StoryBoard had the same issue, and I've recently replaced JSHint with ESlint for just that reason, but I'm not certain it matters as far as OpenStack license compatibility. I'm personally of the opinion that tools used != code shipped, but I am neither a lawyer nor a liable party should my opinion be wrong. Is this something worth revisiting? Michael __ 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
