[rbren]

I’d like to see a “no jerks” license. It’d be MIT by default, but call out specific bad actors as being disallowed from using the software. That way your average corporate user wouldn’t need to consult a lawyer before adopting

[rs186]

It will be as useless in terms of enforcement as "shall be used for good, not evil." https://www.json.org/license.html

[gpm]

I think they're suggesting a license that says "except Apple, Amazon, Google, Huawei, ..." not a license that literally says "no jerks".

The problem of attempting to enumerate the jerks does seem pretty... insurmountable... to me though.

[jraph]

Yeah, and even if you like the idea, this is not dependable. How do you know, as a user, that you'll not end up in the jerk list tomorrow?

[gpm]

Presumably the license would, like practically all open source licenses, be irrevocable. You aren't guaranteed new versions will be issued under the same license (short of a contract saying otherwise, just like every other piece of open source software) but the existing license that did not list you as a jerk can't be revoked...

[jraph]

True, but that's still a risk that adds to the risk of the authors switching the license.

BTW, if the jerk list is tied to the license, if the project had external contributors, they all need to agree to add or remove someone from the list, like any license change…

[gpm]

> BTW, if the jerk list is tied to the license, if the project had external contributors, they all need to agree to add [...] someone from the list, like any license change…

Not if you base this off a license like MIT that allows sublicensing under more restrictive terms (not a lawyer, not legal advice)

[jen20]

Untrue - all that needs to happen is that future work needs to be released with the new list attached.

[andrewshadura]

This software shall not be used for evil. With the exception of IBM, who, together with their partners and minions, are allowed to use this software for evil.