A compendium of "open-source" licenses | Hacker News Reader

A compendium of "open-source" licenses

github.com

The description of the repo is "A compendium of absurd "open-source" licenses." Which I think is relevant to change the title to (the addition of the word "absurd" specifically.

The word "bad" is also used several times, and can be argued is also useful to put in the title

I believe I wrote the title verbatim when submitting. Admittedly, that was a few days ago so I'm not entirely sure.

I think adjectives like that are often filtered out of the title automatically, and take dang or someone else's intervention to put back in

> The Don't Ask Me About It License

> Copying and distribution of this file, with or without modification, are permitted in any medium provided you do not contact the author about the file or any problems you are having with the file

More seriously is there a list of SPDX, OSI rejected licence anywhere ?

I found this (https://spdx.org/licenses/) which seems to include if it's OSI approved or not (so I guess the assumption is that it was rejected by OSI if it isn't approved, but could be pending also).

Then I came across this (https://opensourcewatch.beehiiv.com/p/open-source-initiative...) which says (in 2023) that OSI is adding "Rejected, Approved, Preferred" categories to their labeling system, but I don't find the results of this work, if it was implemented.

We shouldn't put too much stock in what the OSI thinks open source is, since it's a consortium of big tech companies who benefit from more permissive licensing.

The passive aggressive license allows you to do anything with the licensed files except for execute them or binaries created from them. I know it’s a joke, but I’ll ask anyway, do you ever need a license to execute code? I thought copyright was all about the right to make and distribute copies.

Well, the license is a kind of contract, and I think it's technically not incorrect to prohibit execution of created binaries as a condition of the contract. I am not a lawyer though

What I think you’re saying is that even though you don’t need a license to execute the binaries, the copyright license could include a clause saying it doesn’t apply to people who execute the binaries. So when you execute a binary your license to make future copies is revoked, and maybe it retroactively revokes your license for past copies as well. That makes logical sense to me as a fellow non-lawyer.

The passive aggressive license doesn’t seem to say it that way, but I won’t demand that a joke license be legally enforceable. Its real purpose is to evoke sensible chuckles, and it seems to be successful.

There's nothing fundamentally different about the "passive-agressive" license compared to other licenses.

All software licenses work the same way:

- you'd normally be forbidden (by copyright law) to copy the code;

- the only thing that allows you to copy the code is the license;

- the license has terms that you have to agree to in order to be allowed to copy the code.

A license might have terms that are unenforceable (the most extreme example is something like demanding you to give up an unalienable right), that's the domain of contract law. But "you agree to refrain from running the executable" doesn't seem egregious, I doubt it would be unenforceable.

While I understand these are mostly jokes, I do not like the racist and sexist one.

These are actual licenses that exist in the wild, and some are quite famous.

That's even worse. But honestly fine by me because I doubt they're legally enforceable in most places.

A compendium of absurd, funny, and downright bad licenses.

The "The Don't Ask Me About It License" honestly sounds like a good one, right up there with the good luck with that shit license.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com