Evil

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

I guess they'll use JSON when they're building the database to do the next holocaust.
- This isn’t talked about enough.
Did they reveal what the evil task they were using it for was?
- They make chips for missiles.
- Knowing IBM, probably something to do with Nazis
- Probably inflicting Websphere on some company.
Well, IIRC they did work with the Nazis to manage concentration camps and more

https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/ibms-role-in-the-holocaust-new-documents-confirm-t
I remember when he told that story, it was something like this: one company which I don't want to name, so will just say it's initials - IBM. He also authorised usage for IBM "and it's minions".
Source?
- I binged this with “ibm json evil”: https://gist.github.com/kemitchell/fdc179d60dc88f0c9b76e5d38fe47076

So do you use JSON for your endpoints?

No we use XML

Oh interesting why is that?

Uhhh.....no reason

Well SOAP is inherently evil so that just makes sense
- 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...
- I work with SOAP for a legacy API
  
  fucking kill me, I beg you
- At least it's not GraphQL

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?

The clause also states that the product MUST be used for Good, which is a higher bar. I'd imagine most things JSON is used for are fairly morally neutral.
- Space cops
- I'd imagine most things JSON is used for are fairly morally neutral
  
  expect a knock from Json's lawyers. those guys are scumbags
Ask every single person what is the definition of evil and merge all the answers into one definition
- That'd be all the things.
- You'd end up with Schrödinger's Evil
- The law is basically this, it’s why nearly everyone hates the government.
Yeah I would imagine this is the point
Every person should act according to their own morals.
- There would be so much violence in the world if they did.

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.)

It's less evil than XML or YAML
- 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.
- It's still using the lesser of 3 evils, we need a fourth human readable data interchange format.
- YAML is (mostly) a superset of JSON. Is the face hugger any less evil than the alien bursting out of your chest?
- YAML is evil.
- Hmm, hard to argue with that :P
- Idk, I never used the weird advanced features of YAML, but the basics seems really nice for stuff you want people, especially non programmers, to edit. I generally default to YAML for config files.

This is peak licensing

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.

Me buying my first IBM ThinkPad online:

IBM: are you planning to use this ThinkPad to produce weapons of mass destruction?

Me: I wasn't before, but now I'm curious
So if I use it to draw a rocket, I'm violating its license?
- If its a design for something you plan to build then all your software is going to turn into buggy java applets and Tim Apple will give you a wet willy the next time you're trying to look cool. It's right there in the license.
- Ah, the ambiguity of words - the definition of "evil" lies in the eye of the beholder.
- I mean... Missiles and rockets aren't the same thing...

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?

If you want to scare corporations use AGPL or, if you're feeling spicy, SSPL. Do not use WTFPL, it's too permissive.
- https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl-policy/
  
  AGPL policy: Don't use.
Always were.

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

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"?

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?
- 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.
The screenshot clearly is not talking about the json text file format, but a PHP extension called json.
- Yes, but the "shall be used for Good, not Evil" part is part of the json license, not the PHP extension? https://json.org/license

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).

I can't stand beer - is there a rum & Coke license?
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?
- You're allowed to charge before you give access to the software, but then can't restrict the people you give it to giving it to more people. The beer licence sounds like those people would be on the hook for beer, too.
- According to the FSF, it's only free if you tell people what they can do with it, but only very specific things
- 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).
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.
- There are definitely aspects of FSF that deserve criticism, but I don't think their approved licenses is one of them. Licenses approved by both OSI and FSF are the ones people should be using.
  
  Relevant Open Source SE question about "crayon licenses" for the curious.

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.

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

This gave me a brilliant idea:

Everyone adds a clause to whatever license they use stating "any part of this software may not be used for war purposes of any kind"
We wait until software with these licences is spread across the supply chain of everything on Earth
...
World peace, as no country would be legally allowed to wage war

"Vladimir Putin, you are under arrest for war crimes."

"It was a special military operation! It was all the fault of the Nazis!"

"No, not for all that. You're under arrest for violating the GNU GPL! Prepare to meet your source, licencef*****!!!"

*blam* *blam* *blam*

The question on stack overflow: PHP Fatal error: Call to undefined function json_decode()

As a php user, this is hilarious.

The issue shouldn't effect any php users today, as this is a issue with older versions of PHP 5.5, where the "outdated PHP 5.6" was released in 2014.

Anything on PHP 5.6 has been a security risk for half a decade already. So this is like if you were on Ubuntu 14, or Windows 8. If you have problems, it might be you.
- The question is over 11 years old, so idk what is so funny about old question asking about old PHP.
- Asked 2013
  
  running php --version ouputs
  
  PHP 5.5.1-2+debphp.org~precise+2 (cli) (built: Aug 6 2013 10:49:43) Copyright (c) 1997-2013