I understand, and appreciate, the concern for licensing, but it would be a real shame to discount some of the most widely used linters because of a clause that prevents us from being evil.
Any chance we could run this by legal-disc...@lists.openstack.org and hear their reactions before we axe the JS*int projects from OpenStack? On 4/2/14 8:43 AM, "Radomir Dopieralski" <openst...@sheep.art.pl> wrote: >On 02/04/14 15:26, Kevin Conway wrote: >> What licensing issues were brought up that prevent the use of JSLint or >> JSHint? Both are MIT licensed. >> >> Granted, JSLint has an additional clause: >> >> The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil. >> >> >> Maybe that's it? If so, Crockford has been known to make exceptions for >> organizations that wish to use his code for potentially evil >> purposes: >>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-C-JoyNuQJs&feature=player_detailpage#t=2 >>480s. > >Yes, that's exactly it. An exception is not enough -- that clause simply >makes that license incompatible with OpenStack's license. To use it, we >would need to change OpenStack's license too, and it quickly becomes >quite complex. > >You have to remember that organizations like NSA use OpenStack, so we >can't possibly include that clause in its license ;) > >-- >Radomir Dopieralski > > >_______________________________________________ >OpenStack-dev mailing list >OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev