[legal-discuss] [Horizon] Licensing issue with using JSHint in build

Monty Taylor mordred at inaugust.com
Wed Sep 10 18:14:26 UTC 2014


On 09/10/2014 10:56 AM, Aaron Sahlin wrote:
> The Horizon build is using JSHint.   I am in process of writing
> JavaScript best practices for Horizon which includes modifying what
> JSHint Configuration option (rules) are set.   Before I  consider
> syncing the Build's JSHint options with the proposed options from the
> JavaScript best practices (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/117595/), I
> wanted to double check and be sure Horizon got past the legal problem
> with the good/evil licensing.
>
> Background.  JSHint was authored by Douglas Crockford, and he added an
> extra line in the licensing, "The software shall be used for good, not
> evil".  The issue is in the definition of what is good and what is
> evil.   It is too subjective, what is evil differs from person to person
> therefore ends up being a liability and leaving users open to frivolous
> lawsuits.
>
> Is this licensing something Horizon needs to be concerned with?   If so,
> did Horizon get permission or find some way around the licensing issue?

I am not a lawyer.

I do not think there is an issue, although reasonable people disagree 
with me. The reason that I do not think that there is an issue is that 
this is a copyright license, and the "use for good" is a usage 
restriction which is more akin to an EULA than a copyright/copying 
restriction.

Since there is no requirement at USAGE time that the instructions 
bundled with the copyright be shown, it is unreasonable to expect users 
of the software to be aware of the supposed usage restriction or to have 
agreed to them at any point in time. As such I believe it would not 
stand up to a click-through EULA viability test.

If, however, the statement was something like:

"this software may not be included in software that is intended for evil 
use"

Then I think that as a portion of a copyright license it would be 
actionable, since as part of a copyright license it would actually be in 
some way describing terms related to copying or distribution, which is 
what copyright has authority over.

For that reason, I believe that the statement is line noise and just as 
meaningful as if he's included a statement about his favorite fruit or a 
description of Phil Collins' work while with Genesis with no 
instructions whatsoever.

However, I am not a lawyer, and reasonable people disagree with my views.

> I had posted this question initially to
> openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org, in which Jeremy Stanley responded
> with the following which I though was relevant to include.
>
> It's worth mentioning that Douglas Crockford seems to consider the free
> software
> legal concerns around his license choice amusing and will
> apparently, upon request, provide an exception to an organization
> wishing to use his software for evil[1]. He has no interest in
> changing the situation[2] in JSLint or derivatives (like JSHint)
> even if that means that they can not be provided as part of
> Debian[3] or similar legally-concerned distributions.
>
> [1]http://dev.hasenj.org/post/3272592502/ibm-and-its-minions
> [2]https://github.com/jshint/jshint/issues/1234
> [3]http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-legal%40lists.debian.org/msg40718.html
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-discuss mailing list
> legal-discuss at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-discuss
>




More information about the legal-discuss mailing list