Don't Be a Jerk: The Open Source Software License
github.com
github.com
That particular clause has caused quite a bit of headache for PHP package maintainers, because technically it makes the license a non-open source license, even though the rest of the license is just your bog standard MIT/BSD-like license.
Long story short, don't write your own licenses.
see e.g.: http://wonko.com/post/jsmin-isnt-welcome-on-google-code
Would it be Discrimination Against evil Fields of Endeavor?
"It's evil, fercryingoutloud! Don't do evil!
Everyone knows what evil is!"
And it gets used, and that clause sits there, like a hidden dog turd, waiting for someone to step in the wrong spot, and all of a sudden the developer and their minions are up in arms about the user and their minions, who are so obviously evil that there shouldn't even be a discussion.
Because it's evil, and evil is self-evident.
Except it isn't. It really, really isn't.
To be effective as a disclaimer of the implied warranty of merchantability, it must mention merchantability. This is explicit UCC law in all 50 states (warranty of fitness can be disclaimed without explicit reference to it).
The only way around tht is the next section, which states "Unless the circumstances indicate otherwise, all implied warranties are excluded by expressions like "as is," "with all faults" or other language which in common understanding calls the buyer's attention to the exclusion of warranties and makes plain that there is no implied warranty;"
This is why why licenses use the term "as-is", to avoid arguments about whether it falls into the "makes plain" part.
Only a few courts have really considered the issue on something that is a close call, because, as one contracts book i have put it: "Given the UCC has explicitly approved language to disclaim implied warranties, it would be folly to use anything else"
However, the cases i can find are split as to whether wording like this would be plain enough language (among other things, using the term "offer" in that sentence is a really bad idea, as it can arguably be read to say that he does not sell warranties, instead of saying that there are no warranties)
Feeding your family or paying rent seem to be real jerk moves then I guess.
That said, I don't happen to view making proprietary software as immoral, and I don't like the judgmental tone of what he wrote either.
And in any case, like drrotmos and others write, don't write your own license, it's generally a bad idea.
My software is distributed under the MIT license. I charge money for customers to get access to the software. Therefore, I am a jerk under the terms of this license.
The license claims that the software is both free and open source. It understands neither philosophy.
I appreciate the concept of GPL raising the bar too high for commercial software to compete and it's been a great success in some areas. But that isn't quite the same as freedom. It might be more accurately be called "forced free" software.
It is a bunch of opinion statements.
It is a non-lawyer attempting cuteness... and failing.
But still, don't write your own licenses. There is no point, and if your software is succesful, at some point someone somewhere will have headaches over whether your license really gives them the legal permission they need.
"malware"/"spyware" is complicated. Does Ubuntu count as spyware? They have some integration with Amazon web shops. Does Debian? It has a "popularity contest" for packages ( http://popcon.debian.org/ ).
Can you come up with a definition of "malware" that excludes actual malware and excludes the Debian popularity contest?
Malware, for a given user and computer, is installed software that, in the absence of constraints (such as imperfect information, limited time and ability), would not be installed.
This defines malware as a space rather than a binary, but I'm fine with that.
IE. If you license your code, project A, with 'GPLv3 + no-stupid-software', and project B wants to use your code but they're licensed as 'GPLv3', legally they can't because the licenses are incompatible. Project B would have to amend their license to add the 'no-stupid-software' clause to make it compatible with project A (But of course doing that may introduce other license incompatibilities with other pieces of software, and projects with a decent number of contributors probably don't have much of an option to change license at this point).
I don't know if there would be any incompatibilities going the other direction: You want to use project B in your software, and project B has the license 'GPLv3' but your software has the license 'GPLv3 + no-stupid-software'. I think that should be ok, assuming that clause doesn't conflict with anything already in the GPL, but again, IANAL.
Trademarks are expensive and take effort, though, so this is not a model for small maintainers.
You'll never take this down... ever?
Bottom line is: This is cute, this should be sensible, but it makes those people whose job it is to build software systems difficult, and what it means is that your software, no matter how good it is, won't be used.
Instead use a http://opensource.org/licenses licence.
That "is not limited too" sounds scary. I would hesitate to use software under that license. So I guess that is the big difference between the licenses: One allows you to do pretty much whatever you want. The other allows you to be sued for pretty much whatever the author wants.
A few things point to this interpretation.
* All other clauses clauses start with >
* It is followed by "enjoy your free software", which is clearly not intended to be mandatory
* Your interpretation is contradicted by the two instances of "You don't have to, but not doing so would make you a jerk." Those instances are examples of thing that do make you a jerk but are nevertheless allowed.
Why?
Because there can be another guy who has tried to make a living from selling a product in the same niche - a high quality product for a reasonable price.
And the 'altruistic jerk' has just ruined the business of the good guy turning the niche into a monopoly of the free crap.
Do you think it is an okay thing, applied to either brick and mortar or software?
No "free" software is actually free. The developers have just used some resources from elsewhere to create the product (spare time while earning a living from a daytime job also counts), and then released it for free gaining an unfair advantage over those who try to make the product development self-sustained. This is purely cheating or predatory pricing.
With this kind of reasoning the person who is pulled into the pile of crap deserves it.
I see lots of free projects that could have made their authors rich, but didn't. Instead the authors keep enjoying their daytime jobs.
Actually, speaking of "deserving the business", the question should be why is the thing free? Why won't the 'altruistic jerk' set a fair price? It may be because in this case they would simply lose the competition, and the only way they can make it is by seducing the customers with free stuff. So who does actually deserve the business and who doesn't?
It looks about the same except that this license will see you as a jerk if you don't play nice.
Neither "free" nor "open source" are strict terms in a legal sense, the rest is a non-exhaustive set of examples.
It's probably never of any practical issue for the developer, as they don't care enough, but for people that actually have to audit their code bases for legal issues, this thing is a no-go.