Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Would You Die To Respect a Software License?

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the visit-from-the-compliance-department dept.

GNU is Not Unix 233

Julie188 writes "Some 2,000 licenses cover the 230,000+ projects in Black Duck's open source knowledge base. While 10 licenses comprise 93% of the software, that leaves 1,980-odd licenses for the other 3% — and some of them have really crazy conditions. The Death and Repudiation License, for instance, requires the user to be dead."

cancel ×

233 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Hell No ! (3, Funny)

lord_rob the only on (859100) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270190)

Even if I like a software to be free as in freedom, I respect a software developer to do whatever with his software

Re:Hell No ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32270622)

I won't even register with a valid email address, so why should I die? That's like, you know, a lot more effort then sending an email.

Math license (5, Funny)

pluther (647209) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270202)

Which license redefines math so that 1980 + 10 = 2000, and taking 93% leaves only 3% remaining?

Re:Math license (1)

sheph (955019) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270292)

It's the new math.

Re:Math license (1)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270298)

The Sonny Bono License.

The humorless answer: (5, Informative)

FoolishOwl (1698506) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270402)

The summary left out part of a sentence:

It's important to note that the top 10 licenses cover 93% of all projects and the top 20 almost 97%.

Re:Math license (1)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 4 years ago | (#32271566)

Welcome to New Math! Where any answer is the right one!

Way to go Jimmy!

Re:Math license (2, Insightful)

sharkey (16670) | more than 4 years ago | (#32271652)

It was submitted by "Julie188". Perhaps this is only proving that girls are bad at math? Or maybe being sexist and trying to make girls look dumb makes timothy feel like a man?

It's not news, it's Slashdot (4, Insightful)

Luke has no name (1423139) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270204)

Slow day.

Re:It's not news, it's Slashdot (5, Funny)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270314)

Here's some more ideas:

Would you smell a nasty fart to prevent terrorism?
Would you give up your ability to see if it meant you could time travel?
Would you listen to an entire Britney Spears album if it could bring about world peace?

Re:It's not news, it's Slashdot (5, Funny)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270432)

Aw, come on, most of those are easy to pick. How about something that strains our decision engines a little bit?

-- Would you take a job as Steve "Monkeyboy" Ballmer's toe-cheese extractor if it meant Microsoft would publish only via OSS licenses?

-- Would you take a position as Steve "Tyrant" Jobs' fashion consultant if it meant Apple would open up the app store?

-- Would you lick Stallman's neck and armpit if it meant GNU/Hurd became a complete, usable, modern kernel?

These are the type of choices that would keep me up at night.

Re:It's not news, it's Slashdot (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270568)

You owe me a meal and a bottle of brain bleach for that written Goatse/PainSeries.
Please mod down.

Re:It's not news, it's Slashdot (1)

Godji (957148) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270572)

I have no idea what toe-cheese is, but intuition tells me I should resist.

Re:It's not news, it's Slashdot (1)

Dekker3D (989692) | more than 4 years ago | (#32271296)

that's wise. anything from beneath the waist tends to not be food. at least not for it's own species.

Re:It's not news, it's Slashdot (4, Funny)

grcumb (781340) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270752)

-- Would you take a job as Steve "Monkeyboy" Ballmer's toe-cheese extractor if it meant Microsoft would publish only via OSS licenses?

I suppose it would be a worthy sacrifice.

-- Would you take a position as Steve "Tyrant" Jobs' fashion consultant if it meant Apple would open up the app store?

I am willing to expend my life in pursuit of turtlenecks if it means Openness for all.

-- Would you lick Stallman's neck and armpit if it meant GNU/Hurd became a complete, usable, modern kernel?

No! Not in a thousand lifetimes, no! What do you think I am, you sick twisted fuck?!?

Re:It's not news, it's Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32270814)

Would you lick Stallman's neck and armpit if it meant GNU/Hurd became a complete, usable, modern kernel?

Deal.

Re:It's not news, it's Slashdot (1)

Frigo (1702110) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270840)

> -- Would you lick Stallman's neck and armpit if it meant GNU/Hurd became a complete, usable, modern kernel?

I would spend days and nights to finish GNU/Hurd just to get a taste of Stallman's delicious armpit!

Re:It's not news, it's Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32270988)

The first two are easy, but the third one's a false choice: you can also fork and do it yourself.

Re:It's not news, it's Slashdot (3, Funny)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 4 years ago | (#32271198)

The first two are easy, but the third one's a false choice: you can also fork and do it yourself.

Where did you get an Instant Adult (tm) cloning device? I thought they were sold out?

I personally lack the replicator necessary to fork Stallman and lick him myself.

Re:It's not news, it's Slashdot (1)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#32271484)

Microsoft to publish their source code under OSS licenses? So you want Steve Ballmer's toe cheese to not only be smelled by you but also to proliferate throughout the entire internet?

Re:It's not news, it's Slashdot (4, Funny)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 4 years ago | (#32271586)

-- Would you lick Stallman's neck and armpit if it meant GNU/Hurd became a complete, usable, modern kernel?

Would get Stallman to finally shut up? If so, I'd definitely consider it.

Re:It's not news, it's Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32271638)

-- Would you take a job as Steve "Monkeyboy" Ballmer's toe-cheese extractor if it meant Microsoft would publish only via OSS licenses?

Am I allowed to use tweezers, or do I have to do it bare-handed?

-- Would you take a position as Steve "Tyrant" Jobs' fashion consultant if it meant Apple would open up the app store?

Are you kidding? I'd do that for a living wage. "Here's another turtleneck, Steve. I'm going on break."

-- Would you lick Stallman's neck and armpit if it meant GNU/Hurd became a complete, usable, modern kernel?

Ugh, why? So we can have two? [linux.org]

Re:It's not news, it's Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32270448)

Answers:

Yes
Yes
NO

Re:It's not news, it's Slashdot (2, Insightful)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270538)

Fuck world peace.

Re:It's not news, it's Slashdot (1)

Godji (957148) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270562)

No, no, and.... hmmmm.... fuck no.

Re:It's not news, it's Slashdot (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270634)

Would you listen to an entire Britney Spears album if it could bring about world peace?

Britney's albums are hardly what I would call "music", and the concept of world peace is the antithesis to human nature. Regardless, it's par for the course.

Re:It's not news, it's Slashdot (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32271064)

Would you listen to an entire Britney Spears album if it could bring about world peace?

Depends, is "world peace" defined as "all humans exterminated" and is the Spears album the delivery method of said destruction?

Re:It's not news, it's Slashdot (1)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 4 years ago | (#32271828)

Fantastic. MrEricSir is my new god.

Re:It's not news, it's Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32271920)

Oh, just laugh for once in your miserable jaded life, already.

Brrraaaiiinnnnsss (1)

Great_Moloko (1815310) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270222)

First they eat brains, now zombies are using computers, next zombie lolcats!

Re:Brrraaaiiinnnnsss (1)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 4 years ago | (#32271650)

That Death and Repudiation license is awesome. I wish I actually published software so I could use it, that's one hell of a mind-fuck.

The only way to use the software is if you are dead (there is an allowance to have your heirs carry out your uses for you), and if you follow the terms of the license it will be repudiated at a time deemed most likely to screw your heirs over.

Who put the Idle story in the News bin? (3, Insightful)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270232)

If a software license exists, and no software is written that is available under the terms of that license, does it merit discussion on Slashdot?

It looks to me as somebody set up a site to create a gallery of TOSes so software writers can get some ideas... but then the site got attacked by the typical forum trolls took over and we get a comedy site as the end result. This belongs to Idle next to news from The Onion.

Re:Who put the Idle story in the News bin? (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270350)

No software? I'm dissapointed...

Seems like a decent fit for grave / graveyard info screens, embedded software used for some equipment required for transplants, controlling the morgue, etc.

Re:Who put the Idle story in the News bin? (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 4 years ago | (#32271006)

You missed the fine print, where they cancel it and come after everyone.

Re:Who put the Idle story in the News bin? (2, Interesting)

Flea of Pain (1577213) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270428)

Although would it be possible for this license to have close to an applicable use? Ie. Software for dealing with funeral expenses. You can only use it if you are dead, and being dead gives leave for your family to access the software license only. If you aren't dead, then they or you are breaking the terms of the license. Just a thought, obviously the terms of excessive punishment may need to be edited.

Severability (2, Insightful)

Spazmania (174582) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270238)

I believe a court would find that clause unenforceable and sever it from the rest of the contract.

Re:Severability (1)

sheph (955019) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270324)

Well you'd hope so, but given some of the decisions coming down now days I'd say counting on common sense might be pushing your luck.

Re:Severability (1)

Saroful (1364377) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270444)

I would argue that it is enforceable as long as the copyright owner asks the court for specific performance of the terms of the license.

Re:Severability (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270478)

I believe a court would also find that you lack any sense of humor. The D&R license is a joke.

Re:Severability (1)

Spazmania (174582) | more than 4 years ago | (#32271258)

No, really?

Quip on Contracts (4, Insightful)

Improv (2467) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270252)

The "freedom to encumber" works is like the "freedom to punch someone" ... They are both 'freedoms' that only exist at the expense of others.
                -- Gregory Maxwell, discussion on licensing

Re:Quip on Contracts (5, Insightful)

JesseMcDonald (536341) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270462)

That would be a good description of copyright, and thus copyright licenses, but not contracts in general. The terms of a contract are merely conditions which you require to be met before you will voluntarily give the other party some of your property, which you are in no way obligated to do. No matter what the terms may be, they impose no expense on others; one is always free to ignore the offer should one find the terms unpalatable. Licenses are similar, but the copyrights which give licenses their power are artificial social-engineering constructs which only exist at the expense of others.

Re:Quip on Contracts (4, Insightful)

Improv (2467) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270512)

Fair, although contract law has recognised certain topics where contracts are not free for good reason - situations of some sorts are considered generally either coercive or one-sided enough that the public good is ill-served by the absence of some (or significant regulation). Landlord-tenant law is one example, although English common law has accumulated a long list of other circumstances and remedies to specific abuses, many of which we've kept in the US.

Re:Quip on Contracts (1)

JesseMcDonald (536341) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270972)

I recognize that modern contract law has (incorrectly and unjustly, IMHO) rendered certain kinds of contractual terms void. However, even if such terms were fully enforceable they would still be nothing like the "freedom to punch someone" referred to in the Gregory Maxwell quote.

I don't know about serving "the public good"—that isn't really the purpose of contracts, at least not directly—but no mere contractual term is ever truly coercive per se. Somewhere along the line the idea came about that because someone really wants something, it is somehow coercive to place conditions on giving it to them (even though you aren't required to give it to them at all). I obviously reject this notion; coercion is force, and only force. I recognize only two legitimate conditions on contracts: both (all) parties must understand and voluntarily[1] agree to the terms to which they will be bound, and neither (no) party may actively deceive the other(s) to obtain their agreement (i.e. commit fraud). Everything else goes.

[1] voluntarily: of their own free will; the precise opposite of being threatened by the other party with force: violation of any of their property rights, including self-ownership.

Re:Quip on Contracts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32270558)

artificial social-engineering constructs
Since social-engineering itself is an artificial construct you are saying that artificial artificial constructs only exist at the expense of others?

Re:Quip on Contracts (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270870)

Who on earth is Gregory Maxwell, and is there any reason we should care what he says? I can't find that quote on the internet, other than where you said it right there.....

Re:Quip on Contracts (1)

Improv (2467) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270966)

The point of quips are that they state a position succinctly and with charm, not that they rely on the authority of the person who said them. I could tell you who he is, but it doesn't really matter.

Re:Quip on Contracts (1)

Barefoot Monkey (1657313) | more than 4 years ago | (#32271744)

The "freedom to encumber" works is like the "freedom to punch someone" ... They are both 'freedoms' that only exist at the expense of others. -- Gregory Maxwell, discussion on licensing

It must be awesome to have a name like "Gregory Maxwell"; all your quotes sound authoritative.

Whole Article and License, -1 Lame (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32270254)

See subject.

It's a deal. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32270260)

But when I'm dead and unable to use the software, can my family punish them to the fullest extent of the law?

Now that's.... (1)

stakovahflow (1660677) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270264)

That's a load of happy hippie crap, if'n you ask me...

Death for a software license?

Give me the BSD License or give me...

No, not death...

What's the other one?

--Stak

Re:Now that's.... (4, Funny)

compro01 (777531) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270360)

I strongly suspect the D&R license is a BSD license fan responding to someone wanting them to dual-license something.

Re:Now that's.... (2, Interesting)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270868)

Why would someone want a developer to dual license a BSD licensed project? The BSD license is one of the most permissive there is, especially considering not all countries have the concept of public domain. It's not like it was a GPL/D&R dual licensing situation...

Re:Now that's.... (1, Interesting)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 4 years ago | (#32271694)

Many GPL fanbois feel the BSD license is evil. I could see them demanding a dual license, and the developer giving them this subtle "go fuck yourself".

Re:Now that's.... (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270582)

Give me the BSD License or give me...

No, not death...

What's the other one?

Freedom?

Re:Now that's.... (1)

boarder8925 (714555) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270642)

Give me the BSD License or give me... No, not death... What's the other one?

Bread and circuses.

Unenforcable (0)

vxice (1690200) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270270)

That would be unenforceable due to it being a condition that no one would accept. I forget the legal term someone help me.

Re:Unenforcable (1, Insightful)

vxice (1690200) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270304)

After reading it, the license is either BSD or this D&R thing. You only have to be dead if you don't accept the D&R license.

Re:Unenforcable (1)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 4 years ago | (#32271708)

You mean if you don't accept the BSD license. If you accept the D&R license, you're fucked.

GNU zealots (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32270282)

The way they carry on about the GPL makes me think they value ``freedom'' more than being alive.

Um. No. (1)

Alzdran (950149) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270308)

No, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't...

There's not much new in the article itself, though the ideas in some of the non-open licenses are interesting (the "Tofu license" is an interesting activism idea, though it probably misses some of its intention: companies that destroy habitat would be welcome to the software). I think it'd be interesting to see these tested and find what would hold up, and what wouldn't. Also, to the developer that got a Stratocaster out of his license terms: Congratulations.

BSD or die (1)

RichMan (8097) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270334)

Your honor it is clear the defendant rejected the BSD license. They must therefore have accepted the alternate D&R licenses. In recognition of this we demand the death of the defendant as fulfillment of the terms of the license.

This is old news (1)

webbiedave (1631473) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270348)

We called it FUBKRO back in the day:
For Use By Keith Richards Only

Gnu Gninja: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32270352)

I wouldn't die, but I would KILL...

Death and Repudiation License is peanuts (5, Funny)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270368)

The Death and Repudiation License is nothing compared to the EULA of iPhone OS 5.1

Re: Death and Repudiation License is peanuts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32270470)

Is that the one where you promise to let Steve Jobs fuck your asshole while he shouts "Who's the boss!?!"?

Re: Death and Repudiation License is peanuts (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270620)

What, mandatory octopus on user's head?

I'm just dying... (1)

SiaFhir (686401) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270378)

...to use any software with the D&R license.

Back in the 80's... (2, Funny)

N0Man74 (1620447) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270398)

I remember many shareware authors writing strange things in their terms and licenses.

I recall that a common graphics viewer those cool new GIF files (among many other formats) wrote that if you continued using their software after 30 days without paying then a demon would be visited by demons who would torment you.

I was just a kid, didn't have a job, and I never paid. Demons rarely ever visited, and when they did it was just to borrow a cup of sugar or use the phone.

Re:Back in the 80's... (3, Informative)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270490)

Along those lines I have read legal descriptions of real estate plats with all kinds of stuff in them. They are supposed to be verbose, boring descriptions like:

A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE STATE OF CA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, WITH A SITUS ADDRESS OF 915 REAL ESTATE ST, LOS ANGELES CA 90010-3531 C059 CURRENTLY OWNED BY HOUSER HOMER J AND LOTS ROSE M AND HAVING A TAX ASSESSOR NUMBER OF 5090-012-034 AND BEING THE SAME PROPERTY MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS TRACT # 8076 AND DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NUMBER 1020134 DATED 03/22/2003 AND RECORDED 04/14/2003.

I have seen ones, approved by the permit people no less, with instructions to the 'bat cave', lyrics from Pink Floyd, and all kinds of weird junk.

Re:Back in the 80's... (4, Interesting)

Tapewolf (1639955) | more than 4 years ago | (#32271190)

I recall that a common graphics viewer those cool new GIF files (among many other formats) wrote that if you continued using their software after 30 days without paying then a demon would be visited by demons who would torment you.

Graphics Workshop had something like this. In fact:

If you want to see additional features in Graphic Workshop, register
it. If we had an Arcturian mega-dollar for everyone who has said
they'd most certainly register their copy if we'd add just one
more thing to it, we could buy ourselves a universe and retire.

Oh yes, should you fail to support this program and continue to
use it, a leather winged demon of the night will tear itself,
shrieking blood and fury, from the endless caverns of the nether
world, hurl itself into the darkness with a thirst for blood on
its slavering fangs and search the very threads of time for the
throbbing of your heartbeat. Just thought you'd want to know
that.

...If I remember correctly, you could get a discount if you sent the author a photocopy of the cover of his novel.

When I was in college... (5, Funny)

georgewilliamherbert (211790) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270400)

One of my schoolmates released some software with a custom license, which was basically the old-form original UC Berkeley BSD license with a restriction prohibiting any use by persons in "Country Code F", defined as (paraphrasing from memory):

"France, Belgium, Quebec, Sengal, Ghana, Did we mention France?"

I think it was bad experiences with language classes in high school, but I'm not sure.

D&R license (2, Funny)

j0nb0y (107699) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270456)

The D&R license doesn't require anyone to die... you just have to be dead to use software under it. The license even specifies how this is to be accomplished. You're allowed to tell your heirs to use the software on your behalf after you're dead.

The really puzzling clause is the revocation clause, which not only allows the licensor to revoke the license, but proclaims that the licensor WILL revoke the license, and then the heirs will be punished "to the fullest extent of the law." I believe a court would only find liability for usage AFTER the licensor revoked, regardless of the drafter's intention.

Another strange clause seems to say that ghosts and angels are not considered dead for purposes of the license. Pure silliness, of course. What court would claim jurisdiction over angels and ghosts? Certainly not a human one. And an inhuman one is not likely to respect software licenses. The drafter made a big mistake here in failing to define ghosts and angels. These words are just begging for a legal definition.

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

Re:D&R license (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32271746)

The D&R license doesn't require anyone to die... you just have to be dead to use software under it. The license even specifies how this is to be accomplished. You're allowed to tell your heirs to use the software on your behalf after you're dead.

The really puzzling clause is the revocation clause, which not only allows the licensor to revoke the license, but proclaims that the licensor WILL revoke the license, and then the heirs will be punished "to the fullest extent of the law." I believe a court would only find liability for usage AFTER the licensor revoked, regardless of the drafter's intention.

Another strange clause seems to say that ghosts and angels are not considered dead for purposes of the license. Pure silliness, of course. What court would claim jurisdiction over angels and ghosts? Certainly not a human one. And an inhuman one is not likely to respect software licenses. The drafter made a big mistake here in failing to define ghosts and angels. These words are just begging for a legal definition.

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

I think the idea is that you're making a deal with the devil.

Cake or Death? (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270458)

Reminds me of this Eddie Izzard riff: (pardon the length)

"Cake or death?" That's a pretty easy question. Anyone could answer that.

  • "Cake or death?"
  • "Eh, cake please."
  • "Very well! Give him cake!"
  • "Oh, thanks very much. It's very nice."
  • "You! Cake or death?"
  • Uh, cake for me, too, please."
  • "Very well! Give him cake, too! We're gonna run out of cake at this rate. You! Cake or death?"
  • "Uh, death, please. No, cake! Cake! Cake, sorry. Sorry..."
  • "You said death first, uh-uh, death first!"
  • "Well, I meant cake!"
  • "Oh, all right. You're lucky I'm Church of England!" Cake or death?"
  • "Uh, cake please."
  • "Well, we're out of cake! We only had three bits and we didn't expect such a rush. So what do you want?"
  • "Well, so my choice is 'or death'? I'll have the chicken then, please.
  • Taste of human, sir. Would you like a white wine? There you go, thank you very much.
  • Thank you for flying Church of England, cake or death?"
  • I asked for the vegetarian."

To Paraphrase Jefferson Airplane (1)

DynaSoar (714234) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270482)

"Would the software license [orig.: 'my country'] die for me?"

Viva la undead nation! (2, Funny)

HeckRuler (1369601) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270492)

Hey, some of us zombie programmers like to keep the code within a nice small circle. It's kind of a undead pride to release some code under the kill and kill-a-like license. Although the PCL's* don't usually understand the brotherhood that we zombies have, we can usually get those spineless incorporeal asses in HR to back us up. But it's not like we're elitists or a specifically close-minded group. We welcome wight web-masters, c/c++ cadavermen, matlab mummies, ZZT-oop zombies, go ghouls, and scripting skeletons. They're all welcome under my licenses.

*Pointy Crowned Liches

Re:Viva la undead nation! (1)

Bugamn (1769722) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270898)

I believe the D&R is intended for use by dead beings, not undead, as you can see from this excerpt:

If you are found to be a ghost or angel, you will be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Although it does say ghost and not zombie, I believe both have the same status of undead beings.

Immortal Soul (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32270532)

I remember one license that I saw that included a clause that said (approximately),

"Upon violation of any of these terms, ownership of the user's immortal soul is transferred to the vendor"

Sounds like an episode of Buffy.

Me (1)

turgid (580780) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270540)

I saw this once on the intertubes:

I am willing to die to prove that my god exists!!! Are you willing to die to prove that he doesn't!

So it's all well and good.

Re:Me (1)

frank_adrian314159 (469671) | more than 4 years ago | (#32271596)

Wow! That sort of quote is the quintessence of the median of American theological debate.

Since the probability of the first happening is vanishingly small (at least for the moron who spouted it), and the probability of the second higher than the first (at least in this country), being rational, I'd tend to say no to the second. However, that still is not a proof of God's existence (or non-existence). A greater willingness to die stupidly does not a proof make.

Of course, being a heathen (and somewhat snarky) bastard, I can always say "No, but I'm quite willing to let you jump in front of a bus to prove it, if you think that it does."

Re:Me (1)

Xtifr (1323) | more than 4 years ago | (#32271796)

I'm willing to eat a tasty cupcake to prove your god doesn't exist. It may not be as dramatic as dying, but it is every bit as effective a proof! :)

D&R license (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270544)

I hope it's for a daemon...

Death and repudiation? (0, Troll)

Keyslapper (852034) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270554)

Does it help if you don't have a life?

Shouldn't be a problem for most geeks.

Re:Death and repudiation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32271316)

Nice joke.

Thereware (1)

Megane (129182) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270556)

Many years ago, a friend of mine came up with the term "thereware". As in "if it's there, you can use it".

Remember not to use Java.... (5, Funny)

fishexe (168879) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270586)

...."the design, construction, operation or maintenance of any nuclear facility." That's in Sun's EULA. For real.

Re:Remember not to use Java.... (1)

fishexe (168879) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270596)

err...."in the design, construction...."

There's my /. posting fail for the day.

Re:Remember not to use Java.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32270838)

That's actually a major issue in that case.

There's a design tool that can be used to determine seismic loads. It's available from the USGS, and is used in 99.9% of all projects of all types - and is written in Java.

Re:Remember not to use Java.... (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270800)

A -lot- of commercial software have that in their licenses. So many, in fact, that I find myself wondering if there aren't laws in some first world countries that force that to be in there somewhere unless you have specific certifications.

Re:Remember not to use Java.... (4, Informative)

parlancex (1322105) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270946)

Windows server licenses have similar articles stating the OS is unsuitable for realtime applications, such as nuclear reactors. I don't know how they reconcile that with Windows for Battleships exactly.

Re:Remember not to use Java.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32271498)

Windows server licenses have similar articles stating the OS is unsuitable for realtime applications, such as nuclear reactors. I don't know how they reconcile that with Windows for Battleships exactly.

LOL that was great. I was wondering the same thing.

Re:Remember not to use Java.... (1)

JamesP (688957) | more than 4 years ago | (#32271462)

Well, thank god, really

I wouldn't want a java program controlling a nuclear facility!

Or better, I wouldn't want the average java programmer making a java program that will control a nuclear facility.

I'm a zombie and i have rights too!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32270712)

I think this is definite racism against zombies and i'd take this court if i could only find some brains.

My favorite is the buggeroff license. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32270774)

Sure, no problem. Don't worry, be happy. Now bugger off.

Sadly, the original source of this license is gone (it was the only worthwhile content in geocities) the intertubes never forget: http://web.archive.org/web/20080208115239/http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Cafe/5947/bugroff.html

ZZzzz... (1)

mingle (1121231) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270834)

No, but I'd probably die of boredom while reading it...

Corporate Use? (1)

Faith_Healer (690508) | more than 4 years ago | (#32270942)

A corporation is considered to be a legal person who is not alive. (Note a normal person is considered to be a natural person) It seems like a corporation could use the software legally under this license. Just making an observation. This is not legal advice, IANAL yet

No warranty fortune cookie (1)

owlstead (636356) | more than 4 years ago | (#32271020)

Somewhat related is one of my favorite fortune cookies:

NOTE: No warranties, either express or implied, are hereby given. All
software is supplied as is, without guarantee. The user assumes all
responsibility for damages resulting from the use of these features,
including, but not limited to, frustration, disgust, system abends, disk
head-crashes, general malfeasance, floods, fires, shark attack, nerve
gas, locust infestation, cyclones, hurricanes, tsunamis, local
electromagnetic disruptions, hydraulic brake system failure, invasion,
hashing collisions, normal wear and tear of friction surfaces, comic
radiation, inadvertent destruction of sensitive electronic components,
windstorms, the Riders of Nazgul, infuriated chickens, malfunctioning
mechanical or electrical sexual devices, premature activation of the
distant early warning system, peasant uprisings, halitosis, artillery
bombardment, explosions, cave-ins, and/or frogs falling from the sky.

mo3 up (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32271440)

It there. Bring with procces and
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?