[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: use of json.org in biojava3-ws

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:50:38AM +0200, Karsten Hilbert wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 08:52:02AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > BTW, I spended another thought on this license and that it is definitely
> > not applicable:  Assume someone would plan a murder using software XY
> > which is forbidden to use for evil.  This murder in spe would read the
> > license and think:  Uhm, I'm not allowed to use this software legally so
> > I will sit down, delay my plan and will rewrite this software to finally
> > beeing able to do this murder...  I'd call the attempt of this license
> > something of the kind "Trying to make the world a better place but
> > fail."  The evil users will simply not care and others end up with
> > non-free software.  I'd love to see a re-evaluation of this kind of
> > licenses.
> This argument does not help because it intrinsically assumes
> that one can know beforehand what's good and what's evil.
> Assume I would license GNUmed in a way as to say:
> 	GPL except you are not allowed to use it to track the
> 	health of prison inmates.
> Now what ?

I do not really like to spend my time on broken licensing but your
example does not fit.  You *explicitely* are discriminating fields of
endeavor (item 6. of DFSG) and this would make it clearly non-free which
is not the case for the good-evil-license.

My example was rather like: ... may not be used by people who are
evil enough to disregard licensing statements.

Kind regards



Reply to: