[tbranyen]

Do you think Douglass Crockford didn't know that? He was being cheeky and doesn't care. This was also a huge pain point for JSHint and a lot of work went into undoing that by finding a single commit that didn't have the clause iirc.

[msdrigg]

I looked it up and found this interesting read: https://jshint.com/relicensing-2020/

[gabagool]

I read this and it is interesting. I get why asking JS Hint contributors to re-submit/approve their changes is clear of the Do No Evil clause.

But, I don't understand why all changes before that (from JS Lint Day 1 until it was forked into JS Hint) aren't subject to that same clause. Why is the Eclipse Foundation not subject to it?

[Uehreka]

I guess some people might find it cheeky or funny to build an entire software product that does something people want, and then make it impossible for most people to use by adding a silly licensing clause. I’d consider it a huge waste of time, but hey, it’s not my project.

[dspillett]

> but hey, it’s not my project.

The correct attitude to have.

If the licence is not compatible with our desired use we have the choice to move on our try negotiate different terms (or both: try for different terms and move on if compromise cannot be achieved).

No creator is under any obligation to make their stuff useful to us.

[MaxBarraclough]

Right. It's probably the second worse place to put jokes, next to an employment contract.

[the_pwner224]

It makes it impossible for most organizations to use, not for most people to use.

[jdmichal]

You're free to contact the owner(s) to negotiate a different license.