-2

https://github.com/asianirish/common-potato/blob/master/LICENSE.txt

The text of the license:

You can use this code freely as long as you completely agree with the text of this license and include this license in your code distribution

Putin, go fuck yourself!
Путин, пошёл на хуй!

IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO ALL OF THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED FOR YOU

Any tips to fix/improve it?

3
  • 1
    IANAL, but no; this is not "compatible" because it fails to specify several conditions which are in the LGPL, and stipulates a condition which is legally dubious and probably unenforceable.
    – tripleee
    Mar 6 at 11:56
  • I think there's two sides to being compatible with LGPL: 1) can you include a program with your license into a combining work with an LGPL library? 2) can you include a library with this license into an LGPL library?
    – DavidW
    Mar 6 at 11:57
  • Free software according to the FSF has to fulfill "The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0)", and the OSI's Open Source Definition lists "No Discrimination" against persons, groups, or fields of endeavour. In particular, you cannot restrict the use or modification or distribution of FLOSS in such ways, be it against commercial use, military use, use by Putin supporters, use for NFTs, use to "do evil", etc.
    – ecm
    Mar 8 at 10:50

1 Answer 1

5

Firstly, this licence has all the same problems associated with any other crayon licence.

Secondly, and also fatal to my mind, is that it doesn't specify what rights are given. It says that one may "use this code freely", but both use this code and freely are ambiguous in English. Compare that with (to pick a random example) the MIT licence's grant:

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so...

That takes about sixty words to say what takes you six, and there's a reason for that: to avoid legal ambiguities.

Thirdly, we come to the requirement to agree with a political statement in order to avail oneself of the licence grant. I have some sympathy with this, but I think it's doomed to failure, because there's no central register of human beliefs, and people are allowed to change their minds. What will you do if someone uses your code, then claims they don't hold the required belief, you sue for copyright violation, and their defence is that they held the required belief at the time they used the code, but no longer do so?

There is also the problem that this licence may be un-free. The closest analogue I can find, the JSON licence that required "the use of the software for good, not evil", was held by the FSF to be non-free. If your licence is un-free, it's off-topic for this site.

So in short I think there are too many problems with this licence to have any chance of talking about its compatibility with any standard free licence.

1
  • Thank you very much for your answer!
    – asianirish
    Mar 6 at 19:51

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.