• ailepet@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Wait I though the point of these post-opensource clauses (see also: anti-capitalist licence, WTFPL, etc.) was to scare off the big corporations lawyers and make sure your code won’t end up in AWS or something like that? Are Linux distros the only actors who are still giving a shit about licencing?

    • frayedpickles@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      45 minutes ago

      Always were.

      Big companies care too but only if their cya arm knows enough about software to actually enforce anything. A lot don’t.

  • muelltonne@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    9 hours ago

    The biggest problem with such a clause is that it is hard to define “evil”, even if it seems clear to you. Some people think that abortion is evil, so are abortion clinics banned from Json? What about the military and weapon manufacturers? Killing is evil, but you all know how the discourse about the military as national heroes that can’t be evil in the US goes. What about a service like X - is it evil? Can you define “evil” for a surveillance tool that brands itself as ad tech?

  • renzev@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    7 hours ago

    OK but how can json have a license? I understand a particular json parser having a license, but how can a specification, which contains no code, even be considered “software”?

    • frayedpickles@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 hour ago

      Uh define code there. What about when storage and code are both on a machine that considers both instructions and data to be data? Is a spec not a creative work? Is code not just a spec?

      • AnyOldName3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        39 minutes ago

        It’s generally accepted that file formats aren’t protected IP, so you can write a compatible reader or writer and be in the clear as long as you reused no code from the original reader/writer. The specification may have licence terms that restrict who you can share the spec with, but you don’t necessarily need the official spec to come up with a compatible implementation. Plenty of file formats have been reverse engineered over the years even when the original didn’t have a written spec.

  • lime!@feddit.nu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    215
    ·
    17 hours ago

    fun fact: IBM asked for, and got, an exception from that clause.

      • _____@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        11 hours ago

        I work with SOAP for a legacy API

        fucking kill me, I beg you

        • NiHaDuncan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          9 hours ago

          GraphQL saved my ass on a term project that required extensive polling of the GitHub API. Turned a calculated 47 days of calls just under the rate limit into just 12 hours.

      • bahbah23@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        15 hours ago

        What happens is that engineers look at a technology and say, this is too complex, I just need something simple. So they invent and/or adopt something simpler than the popular technology of the day.

        But as they build more and more things using the technology, they realize that it needs more features, so those get added on. This happens over and over again to the technology with more and more features being added to it, until a new set of engineers look at it and say this is too complex, I just need something simple…

  • Arghblarg@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    17 hours ago

    How does one address the paradox that, as JSON itself is evil, one cannot use it for evil?

    (opinions may vary on the above; but it’s mine, so nyah nyah.)

      • tinkling4938@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 hours ago

        YAML is (mostly) a superset of JSON. Is the face hugger any less evil than the alien bursting out of your chest?

        • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 hours ago

          It’s got enough serious flaws and quirks that I can feel smug hating on it. JSON is far from perfect, but overall it’s the least worst of human-readable formats.

          Only Python manages to get away with syntactical indentation.

          • renzev@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            8 hours ago

            The complaints about yaml’s quirks (no evaluating to false, implicit strings, weird number formats, etc.) are valid in theory but I’ve never encountered them causing any real-life issues.

            • AnyOldName3@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              28 minutes ago

              no doesn’t become false, it becomes Norway, and when converted to a boolean, Norway is true. The reason’s because one on YAML’s native types is an ISO country code enum, and if you tell a compliant YAML implementation to load a file without giving it a schema, that type has higher priority than string. If you then call a function that converts from native type to string, it expands the country code to the country name, and a function that coerces to boolean makes country codes true.

              The problem’s easy to avoid, though. You can just specify a schema, or use a function that grabs a string/bool directly instead of going via the assumed type first.

              The real problem with YAML is how many implementations are a long way from being conformant, and load things differently to each other, but that situation’s been improving.

      • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        ·
        15 hours ago

        XML is ok for complex docs where you have a detailed structure and relationships. JSON is good for simple objects. YAML is good for being something to switch to for the illusion of progress.

        • Radioactive Butthole@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          11 hours ago

          Meh. I just wish XML was easier to parse. I have to shuttle a lot of XML data back and forth. As far as I can tell, the only way to query the data is to download a whole engine to run a special query language, and that doesn’t really integrate into any of my workflows. JSON retains the hierarchy and is trivially parsed in almost any programming language. I bet a JSON file containing the exact same data would be much smaller also, since you don’t list each tag twice.

      • jonne@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        14 hours ago

        It’s still using the lesser of 3 evils, we need a fourth human readable data interchange format.

  • 👍Maximum Derek👍@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Spoilsports. Next they’ll be telling me I can’t use apple software in the development, design, manufacture, or production of nuclear, missile, or chemical or biological weapons.

  • superkret@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    16 hours ago

    The FSF also lists any software as non-free which uses the beer license (use the software in any way you want, and should you ever meet the author, pay them a beer).

    • ProgrammingSocks@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      Is it really contrarian to like the FSF these days? I mean people seem to hate Stallman too but both are pretty important in the history and continuing existence of free software.

      The four essential freedoms are in my view as important as the FSF says, and any license that doesn’t meet all four will be met with skepticism from me absolutely.

      Also, the GPL is a real, legal license, and even if there’s a silly clause that causes it to be incompatible, that’s still a legal liability - of course they have to take it seriously.

    • Dave@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      15 hours ago

      I thought it was free as in speech not free as in beer? So if it costs a beer then isn’t it still free (as in speech)? Or is this a OSI vs FSF difference?

      • thebestaquaman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 hours ago

        I was thinking the same thing, does anyone have any context as to why the Beer license is not considered free? If I’m to guess it probably has something to do with copyleft-restrictions (or lack thereof).

  • ColonelThirtyTwo@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Everybody gangsta with the “don’t be evil” clause until the authors turn out to be a nutjob who thinks trans people are blights against God and must be exterminated.

    I doubt (or at least hope) that that’s not what they think, but hopefully that illustrates why the clause is dumb.

    • ProgrammingSocks@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 hours ago

      100%, and it doesn’t seem to lay out a legal definition of “good” so it’s actually worse than useless - it’s ambiguous.