Red Hat Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
|Product:||[Fedora] Fedora||Reporter:||Dave Malcolm <dmalcolm>|
|Component:||Package Review||Assignee:||Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody>|
|Status:||CLOSED CANTFIX||QA Contact:||Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>|
|Version:||rawhide||CC:||a.badger, ccurran, fedora-package-review, notting, pahan, tcallawa|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2008-09-03 14:01:03 EDT||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
|Bug Depends On:|
Description Dave Malcolm 2008-07-15 15:42:46 EDT
Comment 1 Jason Tibbitts 2008-08-10 16:29:13 EDT
I don't know if the issue of the weird license was ever resolved on-list; blocking FE-Legal to hopefully get a clear statement in this ticket.
Comment 2 Toshio Ernie Kuratomi 2008-09-02 00:41:33 EDT
I had a package with a file licensed with the same "Good, not Evil" clause. Although it's something of a joke, the clause does render the license non-Free in the free software sense. If the license text can be relaxed slightly to be non-binding then it would be okay.
Comment 3 Dave Malcolm 2008-09-02 10:59:00 EDT
I can approach upstream, but what is the exact problem here; are you interpreting the clause as a "limitation against a field of endeavor"? Thanks
Comment 4 Tom "spot" Callaway 2008-09-02 12:22:36 EDT
Basically, the concern is that "shall be used for good, not evil" constitutes a use restriction. Not only that, it is a vague use restriction, where the definitions of "good" and "evil" are not defined in the terms of the license. Upstream needs to take one of the following actions for this to be okay for Fedora (in order of preference): 1. Drop that line entirely. 2. No, really. Drop that line entirely. Licenses are not the appropriate place for such "joke text". 3. Change the line to read something like "The software should be used for Good, not Evil." This makes it a suggestion, not a use-restriction.
Comment 5 Dave Malcolm 2008-09-02 12:46:30 EDT
Thanks; I've emailed the author asking for the text to be removed/changed.
Comment 6 Dave Malcolm 2008-09-03 14:01:03 EDT
Unfortunately, the author is unwilling to change the license text, so I'm going to have to close this one as "can't fix" Thanks to everyone for your help, in any case.
Comment 7 Christopher Curran 2009-08-13 03:10:04 EDT
IANAL but given the various interpretations of good and evil I think this is not an issue. All we need is to find an appropriate thesis which shows good and evil do not exist or that good and evil are overlapping variables. If good can be evil in context and the equivalent event evil not good then there is no problem as the license negates itself. I say that it is moral to accept his software as sufficiently free and save discussions of morality for the pub, where real philosophy occurs. Chris
Comment 8 Tom "spot" Callaway 2009-08-13 10:10:06 EDT
Red Hat Legal (who are lawyers) disagree. Its a bad license, with unenforceable clauses.