Re:Evil, or why Douglas Crockford is harmful to Free Software
by markokocic on Friday November 09, 2012 @12:05PM
(#4763664)
I completely agree with you here. People should take care about licenses of the software they use, especially in a commercial setup, for all the reasons you stated.
But, you read the license, you decide if you are going to use it or not. That's it. If you are not sure, just don't use it. Use something else if available. Or build your own.
What I don't understand is the basis on which some people complain about the authors choice of the license, and feel offended by his license choice.
edit: s/started/stated/
Re:Evil, or why Douglas Crockford is harmful to Free Software
by jballanc on Friday November 09, 2012 @01:05PM
(#4763952)
Indeed. Regarding the article itself, my view would be that the blame lies squarely at the feet of the Mono team for using Crockford's code, license and all, knowing that their target audience (finicky Linux distros) might later object. But then, properly assigning blame is a talent few, if any, possess.
If yes, then as much as you (the hacker/startup founder) might not care or have a second thought about licenses like this, you should keep in mind that your potential purchaser almost definitely will.
Also, just for the record, I'm actually a big fan of Crockford's "Do no evil" license. What bothers me is the number of people who don't pay any more attention to the licenses of the software on which they build entire companies than they do to the EULAs of the software they install. Casually agreeing to a EULA is not the same as disregarding an Open Source license.