[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kwrite-devel
Subject:    Re: Non-free file in pate js_utils plugin
From:       Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler () chello ! at>
Date:       2013-12-03 23:44:39
Message-ID: l7lqd2$ojv$1 () ger ! gmane ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

Philipp A. wrote:
> GOD DAMMIT i'm sorry. Afaik only JSLint, not JSHint is under doug's
> modified MIT license (wikipedia is wrong that they allegedly use the same
> license).

Unfortunately, that is not true. (Wikipedia is right.) The issue is that 
JSHint is derived from JSLint, so the code derived from JSLint is of course 
still covered by the JSLint license, considering that the author refused any 
relicensing requests (except, ridiculously, IBM's).

> and the phrase doug added which made JSLint's MIT license nonfree is
> ridiculously "The Software shall be used for good, not evil"…

Yes, that is a really silly and vague clause. It can be construed to mean a 
lot of things, considering that "good" and "evil" are very poorly defined 
terms.

> If we however identify as "minions of IBM", then we can freely use it,
> since he explicitly allowed IBM (and their minions) to use his software
> for evil :)

I doubt that would fly in court… (Now whether the "evil" clause itself would 
is another question, but we cannot risk depending on the interpretation of 
such vagueness.) Most of us don't report to IBM in any way and so are not 
minions of IBM by any reasonable definition.

> i still want the user to be able to use JSLint, and there should be a
> solution. while the old python lib that got used to provide JSLint
> functionality "got around it" by downloading JSHint on demand, i doubt
> that this is OK. the only difference is that it's not in our repo, but
> that doesn't change the fact that js_utils used the code before just like
> it uses the code now. so my change only directed attention to it, and
> didn't add a new incompatible license.

That's not really a solution either. That python-jslint wrapper is not going 
to be allowed in Fedora either. We only really have 2 options, don't ship 
js_utils at all, or remove JSLint/JSHint support from it.

> i think we could require the user to click a one-time messagebox which
> says "you're only allowed to lint your JavaScript for good, not for evil",
> and, if he declines, fail to load the js_utils plugin with a
> UserIsEvilException. sounds good?

No. This kind of code is not allowed in the tarball at all, so asking at 
runtime is too late. I also don't like the idea of downloading it on demand 
even after a prompt; whether it would be allowed in Fedora is uncertain, and 
we KDE maintainers would probably just patch it out anyway.

        Kevin Kofler

_______________________________________________
KWrite-Devel mailing list
KWrite-Devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kwrite-devel

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]