The software development community has been discussing a fascinating collection of peculiar, problematic, and often humorous software licenses that challenge conventional open-source principles. This compilation showcases licenses ranging from joke creations to genuinely concerning attempts at restricting software usage in ways that create legal ambiguity or impose questionable ethical constraints.
The Spectrum of Problematic Licenses
The collection features licenses that range from harmless jokes to potentially discriminatory restrictions. Some licenses, like the Passive-Aggressive License humorously allow copying and distribution while forbidding actually running the software. Others, such as the Non-White-Heterosexual-Male License and Anyone But Richard Stallman License, explicitly discriminate against specific individuals or groups, raising concerns about their legality and ethics. As one commenter noted about the collection:
While I understand these are mostly jokes, I do not like the racist and sexist one.
However, another commenter pointed out that many of these are actual licenses that exist in the wild, and some are quite famous, highlighting that this isn't merely a theoretical exercise but a documentation of real licensing approaches found in software projects.
Examples of Problematic License Categories:
-
Discriminatory Licenses:
- Non-White-Heterosexual-Male License
- Anyone But Richard Stallman License
- The "Anyone But Some Assholes" license
-
Legally Ambiguous Licenses:
- JSON License ("Good, not Evil" clause)
- Do No Harm License (undefined "bad" purposes)
- MRMO-Halftone license (unclear blockchain definition)
-
Platform-Dependent Licenses:
- wg-easy license (GitHub-specific requirements)
- Winamp Collaborative License (prevents GitHub forking)
-
Joke Licenses:
- YOLO License
- DO WHAT THE F**K YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
- Fuck Your License
Legal Ambiguity and Enforceability Issues
Many of the featured licenses contain vague or unenforceable terms that create significant legal uncertainty. The JSON License, which includes the clause that The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil, demonstrates how subjective moral judgments can be problematic in legal contexts. Similarly, the MRMO-Halftone license attempts to exclude blockchain-related projects without clearly defining what constitutes such a project, creating confusion about its applicability.
These ambiguities raise important questions about license enforceability and highlight the challenges developers face when trying to control how their software is used after release. The wg-easy license, which requires modifications to be published specifically on GitHub, illustrates how licenses can create practical problems if the specified platforms become unavailable or change their terms.
Open Source Definition Violations
Several licenses in the collection explicitly violate the Open Source Initiative's (OSI) standards, despite claiming to be open source. The Opinionated Queer License, for instance, prohibits sales of the software unless substantial changes are made, directly contradicting OSI principles of unrestricted redistribution.
This has sparked discussion about the role and authority of the OSI in defining what qualifies as open source. One commenter suggested that We shouldn't put too much stock in what the OSI thinks open source is, since it's a consortium of big tech companies who benefit from more permissive licensing, reflecting ongoing debates about governance and standards in the open-source community.
The collection serves as both entertainment and a cautionary tale for developers considering creating custom licenses. It demonstrates the complex interplay between legal requirements, ethical considerations, and practical usability that makes software licensing such a challenging field. For developers, it underscores the value of established, legally-vetted licenses over creative but potentially problematic alternatives.
Reference: Bad Licenses