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

Re: question about Good/Evil in a license

Joachim Breitner dijo [Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 10:34:01PM +0200]:
> > Trivially non-free (DFSG #6). Also, the word "evil" is far too
> > subjective to be meaningful in a license.
> how about trivially free, since the sentence, as you say, is not
> meaningful in a license and thus has no effect? :-)

If the program in question is terrible, as bad as it can be to solve
any given program, and I malliciously recommend it to you (to make you
waste your valuable time - Just to put an example, as you recently
tempted me to lose time using an experimental feature in pidgin some
days ago ;-) ), I would be in breach of the license. I do not think
that complies with DFSG#6.

In a more serious tone: «Evil» and «good» are two of the most
problematic words ever. They can mean opposite things to different
people (see all kind of religious or anti-clerical fanaticals). Legal
documents must be as unambiguous as possible. Forbiding somebody to be
"evil" equals putting everybody in a single moral schema. And that is

(Hence the license forbids the author form redistributing his own
software under said license? Hmm... Shutup! I said this would be in a
more serious tone!)

Gunnar Wolf • gwolf@gwolf.org • (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244

Reply to: