Don't Be a Jerk: The Open Source Software License

https://github.com/evantahler/Dont-be-a-Jerk

by hippich • 11 years ago

40 49 11 years ago

github.com

warmwaffles• 11 years ago

How is this different than http://www.dbad-license.org/

EduardoBautista• 11 years ago

And MIT to be honest.

gojomo• 11 years ago

Panache!

oxide• 11 years ago

I don't recall anyone saying it was original, but I'll be damned if this one isn't better.

im3w1l2• 11 years ago

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.

lmm2• 11 years ago

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.

Animats• 11 years ago

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• 11 years ago

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• 11 years ago

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.

Argorak3• 11 years ago

Mozilla does that by keeping the trademark for Firefox and the logo and only allowing the distribution of vanilla packages using them.

Trademarks are expensive and take effort, though, so this is not a model for small maintainers.

rmc3• 11 years ago

It sounds like a good idea. But it would not meet the FSF definition of Free Software, nor the OSI definition of Open Source. So you wouldn't be able to include it in many open source software packages.

"malware"/"spyware" is complicated. Does Ubuntu count as spyware? They have some integration with Amazon web shops. Does Debian? It has a "popularity contest" for packages ( http://popcon.debian.org/ ).

pseudonom-2• 11 years ago

Though Debian's "popularity contest" is opt-in.

Argorak3• 11 years ago

This is more resembling a manifest then a license.

zck• 11 years ago

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• 11 years ago

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.

makeitsuckless• 11 years ago

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

Potando3• 11 years ago

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.

drrotmos• 11 years ago

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• 11 years ago

Im looking through the OSI definition (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?

lmm2• 11 years ago

Yes, exactly that. Evil is a perfectly legitimate field of endeavour.

rtpg• 11 years ago

Pretty sure it's that. I mean is finance work evil? Somebody might think so..

rmc3• 11 years ago

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.

tajen2• 11 years ago

The full legend/joke says Douglas Crockford (the inventor of Json) receives every year a request from an lawyer at IBM asking "What do you mean with 'evil'?". So every year DC returns a letter to this lawyer saying "I hereby authorize IBM to use my software for evil".

evacchi• 11 years ago

"IBM, its customers, partners, and minions" (which is the most hilarious part)

see e.g.: http://wonko.com/post/jsmin-isnt-welcome-on-google-code

BasDirks• 11 years ago

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

DannyBee• 11 years ago

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)

thomasfl• 11 years ago

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

awalGarg• 11 years ago

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

yitchelle• 11 years ago

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.

Argorak3• 11 years ago

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.

kybernetyk• 11 years ago

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• 11 years ago

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• 11 years ago

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

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.

flipcoder• 11 years ago

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

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

pm24601• 11 years ago

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.

perdunov4• 11 years ago

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.

Potando3• 11 years ago

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!

perdunov4• 11 years ago

Are you familiar with the concept of 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?

kpcyrd• 11 years ago

If a bunch of 'altruistic jerks' can drive you out of business in their spare time, maybe you didn't deserve that business in the first place.

perdunov4• 11 years ago

It's like pulling someone into a pile of crap at the expense of going into a pile of crap yourself.

With this kind of reasoning the person who is pulled into the pile of crap deserves it.

I see lots of free projects that could have made their authors rich, but didn't. Instead the authors keep enjoying their daytime jobs.

Actually, speaking of "deserving the business", the question should be why is the thing free? Why won't the 'altruistic jerk' set a fair price? It may be because in this case they would simply lose the competition, and the only way they can make it is by seducing the customers with free stuff. So who does actually deserve the business and who doesn't?

mrda• 11 years ago

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 licence.

Don't Be a Jerk: The Open Source Software License

Related Stories