Return to Answer

Any license which restricts use of the software to certain purposes is by definition not a Free Software license. It is a violation of the very first of what GNU considers the four essential freedoms:

• The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).

You can find several in GNU's list of non-free software licenses, but frankly the world is chock full of non-free software licensees. A good example is the JSON license, which includes this:

The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.

Note that any such license is incompatible with GPL and the LGPL. That means if anyone tries to use software using that license with GPL or LPGL software, the resulting work may not be legally distributed to anyone.

In general, I really, really hate having to pour through someone's homebrew software license to see if I can use their software. I have better things to do with my time. I've found there are 3 licenses that can be used for any purpose I would ever publicly release software:

• GPL - For software I don't ever want some company putting in their own closed-source product. I'm donating it for the public good, if you build on it then you should too (or keep it to yourself). You can still make money, you just can't close the sources.
• GPL with linking and inclusion exceptions - For libraries and APIs that I want to keep open, but allow people to use in closed-source programs. This means anyone can use the API even in proprietary projects. Many people think the LGPL allows this, but it doesn't quite.
• CC0 - I'm giving this away. Do whatever you want with it. This is the closest an American can legally get to Public Domain.

If you use something else, I'm already a little annoyed with you. If its obscure enough that it isn't on GNU's license list, so I have to analyze it myself, I'm triple annoyed. Usually its easier just to find some other software with a better license.

Note that anyone who is going to use your software for "evil" most likely won't care much about usage restrictions in your license either.

Any license which restricts use of the software to certain purposes is by definition not a Free Software license. It is a violation of the very first of what GNU considers the four essential freedoms:

• The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).

You can find several in GNU's list of non-free software licenses, but frankly the world is chock full of non-free software licensees. A good example is the JSON license, which includes this:

The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.

Note that any such license is incompatible with GPL and the LGPL. That means if anyone tries to use software using that license with GPL or LPGL software, the resulting work may not be legally distributed to anyone.

In general, I really, really hate having to pore through someone's homebrew software license to see if I can use their software. I have better things to do with my time. I've found there are 3 licenses that can be used for any purpose I would ever publicly release software:

• GPL - For software I don't ever want some company putting in their own closed-source product. I'm donating it for the public good, if you build on it then you should too (or keep it to yourself). You can still make money, you just can't close the sources.
• GPL with linking and inclusion exceptions - For libraries and APIs that I want to keep open, but allow people to use in closed-source programs. This means anyone can use the API even in proprietary projects. Many people think the LGPL allows this, but it doesn't quite.
• CC0 - I'm giving this away. Do whatever you want with it. This is the closest an American can legally get to Public Domain.

If you use something else, I'm already a little annoyed with you. If its obscure enough that it isn't on GNU's license list, so I have to analyze it myself, I'm triple annoyed. Usually its easier just to find some other software with a better license.

Note that anyone who is going to use your software for "evil" most likely won't care much about usage restrictions in your license either.

Any license which restricts use of the software to certain purposes is by definition not a Free Software license. It is a violation of the very first of what GNU considers the four essential freedoms:

• The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).

You can find several in GNU's list of non-free software licenses, but frankly the world is chock full of non-free software licensees. A good example is the JSON license, which includes this:

The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.

Note that any such license is incompatible with GPL and the LGPL. That means if anyone tries to use software using that license with GPL or LPGL software, the resulting work may not be legally distributed to anyone.

In general, I really, really hate having to pour through someone's homebrew software license to see if I can use their software. I have better things to do with my time. I've found there are 3 licenses that can be used for any purpose I would ever publicly release software:

• GPL - For software I don't ever want some company putting in their own closed-source product. I'm donating it for the public good, if you build on it then you should too (or keep it to yourself). You can still make money, you just can't close the sources.
• GPL with linking and inclusion exceptions - For libraries and APIs that I want to keep open, but allow people to use in closed-source programs. This means anyone can use the API even in proprietary projects. Many people think the LGPL allows this, but it doesn't quite.
• CCO - I'm giving this away. Do whatever you want with it. This is the closest an American can legally get to Public Domain.

If you use something else, I'm already a little annoyed with you. If its obscure enough that it isn't on GNU's license list, so I have to analyze it myself, I'm triple annoyed. Usually its easier just to find some other software with a better license.

Any license which restricts use of the software to certain purposes is by definition not a Free Software license. It is a violation of the very first of what GNU considers the four essential freedoms:

• The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).

You can find several in GNU's list of non-free software licenses, but frankly the world is chock full of non-free software licensees. A good example is the JSON license, which includes this:

The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.

Note that any such license is incompatible with GPL and the LGPL. That means if anyone tries to use software using that license with GPL or LPGL software, the resulting work may not be legally distributed to anyone.

In general, I really, really hate having to pour through someone's homebrew software license to see if I can use their software. I have better things to do with my time. I've found there are 3 licenses that can be used for any purpose I would ever publicly release software:

• GPL - For software I don't ever want some company putting in their own closed-source product. I'm donating it for the public good, if you build on it then you should too (or keep it to yourself). You can still make money, you just can't close the sources.
• GPL with linking and inclusion exceptions - For libraries and APIs that I want to keep open, but allow people to use in closed-source programs. This means anyone can use the API even in proprietary projects. Many people think the LGPL allows this, but it doesn't quite.
• CC0 - I'm giving this away. Do whatever you want with it. This is the closest an American can legally get to Public Domain.

If you use something else, I'm already a little annoyed with you. If its obscure enough that it isn't on GNU's license list, so I have to analyze it myself, I'm triple annoyed. Usually its easier just to find some other software with a better license.

Note that anyone who is going to use your software for "evil" most likely won't care much about usage restrictions in your license either.

Any license which restricts use of the software to certain purposes is by definition not a Free Software license. It is a violation of the very first of what GNU considers the four essential freedoms:

• The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).

You can find several in GNU's list of non-free software licenses, but frankly the world is chock full of non-free software licensees. A good example is the JSON license, which includes this:

The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.

Note that any such license is incompatible with GPL and the LGPL. That means if anyone tries to use software using that license with GPL or LPGL software, the resulting work may not be legally distributed to anyone.

Any license which restricts use of the software to certain purposes is by definition not a Free Software license. It is a violation of the very first of what GNU considers the four essential freedoms:

• The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).

You can find several in GNU's list of non-free software licenses, but frankly the world is chock full of non-free software licensees. A good example is the JSON license, which includes this:

The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.

Note that any such license is incompatible with GPL and the LGPL. That means if anyone tries to use software using that license with GPL or LPGL software, the resulting work may not be legally distributed to anyone.

In general, I really, really hate having to pour through someone's homebrew software license to see if I can use their software. I have better things to do with my time. I've found there are 3 licenses that can be used for any purpose I would ever publicly release software:

• GPL - For software I don't ever want some company putting in their own closed-source product. I'm donating it for the public good, if you build on it then you should too (or keep it to yourself). You can still make money, you just can't close the sources.
• GPL with linking and inclusion exceptions - For libraries and APIs that I want to keep open, but allow people to use in closed-source programs. This means anyone can use the API even in proprietary projects. Many people think the LGPL allows this, but it doesn't quite.
• CCO - I'm giving this away. Do whatever you want with it. This is the closest an American can legally get to Public Domain.

If you use something else, I'm already a little annoyed with you. If its obscure enough that it isn't on GNU's license list, so I have to analyze it myself, I'm triple annoyed. Usually its easier just to find some other software with a better license.