License stuff came up the other day. Got me wondering.
Could I use something like the mit or GPL license, but add a requirement that anyone that uses the software had to send me a pic of their butthole?
What is the use case for this GPL + bhole license?
Memes mostly. It world also need to have an age of majority clause.
Then if the library actually gets picked up somewhere it would be a good extortion tactic.
I just like to interject for a moment. What you’re referring to as butthole is in fact GNU/butthole, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, GNU+butthole.
You can write any conditions you want into a license.
That’s what actually differentiates proprietary licenses from open-source licenses.
Open-source licenses follow certain rules, and you usually select an existing license, so therefore they can be reasoned about, collectively. People often implicitly mean “OSI-approved license”, when they talk of “open-source licenses”.
Proprietary licenses, on the other hand, can contain whatever bullcrap you want.Having said that, I’m not a lawyer, but I imagine, if you also called your license “GNU General Public License”, then a case could probably be made in court, that your license is deliberately confusing.
This one would be like a “GNU General Pubic License.”
They can’t just contain “any bullcrap you want”.
Contracts need to follow the set of rules in your country that dictate what can and can’t be enforced. It’s an entire branch of law.
If you try and pull something like OP is suggesting, the worst case scenario is that it may render the contract an unlawful document and therefore void.
I imagine in most places things like what OP is suggesting would get laughed out of court.
You can have some fun though. I heard of one guy who, as a recruitment bonus, insisted that it be included in his contract that he receive an office desk made entirely of Lego.
You can write almost any bull crap you want, as long as it obviously doesn’t go up against some law and has the main contract elements.
An unenforceable aspect of a contract, won’t void the entire contract if it goes to court, unless it’s the main aspect of the contract.
Well that depends on the laws where you live but if you actually want the contract to be enforceable then yes, it needs to follow certain rules, and no, you can’t just “write any bullcrap”.
But you can write whatever crap you want, it can’t just be the basis of the entire contract.
Let’s say I write a contract for you to supply me bricks for 10 years at a firm fixed price cost of $1 a brick, with an order limit of 100 million bricks. I could then add in elsewhere “if more than 5% of the bricks are damaged, you must supply me with one living unicorn.”
That whole contract doesn’t become void because unicorns do not exist. In fact, if it went to court a lawyer might even argue with a straight face that the supplier must provide something of equal value to a unicorn.
You can write any term you want for your software. There have been instances of people adding terms to their licensing like “You hereby accept to forfeit your soul’s ownership to the creator of this software.”
Enforcing it is a different problem.
What if the Devil just automatically does the transfer and some prankster gets to hell and is friggin rich with like 20k souls to his name?
Then you get the executive suite.
In reality, no one worth extorting is going to use a non OSI approved license (or license and exception).
That said, the JSON license says JSON must not be used for evil. Is it any coincidence Google made protobuf as a JSON alternative??
The GPL states that its text must not be modified. I take this to mean (though I’m no lawboy), that if you wanted to have a license with the same terms plus some changes (the butthole rule), you would have to rewrite the whole thing. It would not nearly be a “GPL license”.
This is very important nitpicking I’m doing here, okay?
Nah, there is the class path exception which is like an amendment to the license sort of. It doesn’t change the text of the license, it’s just added at the end. Also, nothing is stopping you from dual licensing. In the same way many companies provide a version of their software under GPL but provide a version under an exclusive license if you pay them, you could give people the code under an exclusive license if they send a butt pic.
Creative works are better served by Creative Commons licenses instead of software licenses.
deleted by creator
I guess how loosely or roughly or tightly I wanted to inspect these buttholes would be up to me. Maybe I would just have to take the butthole on faith. I might have to develop another library to reverse image search buttholes to at least make sure it was a new butthole.
deleted by creator
I’ve added a “Everyone except Bob Smith can use this software” a la “fuck Anish Kapoor” clauses for paint colors before.
Though honestly it would be hard to enforce.
