JSHint was partly licensed under the JSON license. It is nearly identical to the widely-used MIT Expat license, but it includes one additional clause:
The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.
Because of this clause, folks who respect the practice of software licensing simply could not use JSHint.
If you’re not versed in legal matters, that probably seems like an odd restriction. By rejecting JSHint, are people admitting that they want to do evil? And is that clause actually enforceable, anyway?
The answer to the second question is “no,” and that helps answer the first question. Legally-conscious objectors aren’t betraying their own dastardly motivations; they’re refusing to enter into an ambiguous contract. Put differently: they’re not saying, “I’m an evildoer,” they’re saying, “I don’t understand what you want.” This consideration disqualified JSHint from inclusion in all sorts of contexts.
There's some great, unique irony in this, because I've definitely seen JSHint/JSON used for works I consider evil, with no repercussions. Specifically, software in charge of processing and...
There's some great, unique irony in this, because I've definitely seen JSHint/JSON used for works I consider evil, with no repercussions. Specifically, software in charge of processing and decisioning and selecting targets for automobile repossession. What is the real value of these clauses if some companies don't read the policies anyways, and the ones who refuse to use the software are merely legalistic rather than evil?
Yep, I completely agree, except w.r.t. why people used it. They used it because it was useful, and they either didn't read the license, or felt that their actions were unambiguously good. I don't...
Yep, I completely agree, except w.r.t. why people used it. They used it because it was useful, and they either didn't read the license, or felt that their actions were unambiguously good. I don't think most people actually read software licenses, even if you shove it in their face.
From the first post in the blog series:
There's some great, unique irony in this, because I've definitely seen JSHint/JSON used for works I consider evil, with no repercussions. Specifically, software in charge of processing and decisioning and selecting targets for automobile repossession. What is the real value of these clauses if some companies don't read the policies anyways, and the ones who refuse to use the software are merely legalistic rather than evil?
Yes, that's why it doesn't work.
Yep, I completely agree, except w.r.t. why people used it. They used it because it was useful, and they either didn't read the license, or felt that their actions were unambiguously good. I don't think most people actually read software licenses, even if you shove it in their face.