Ortolo
tanguy.ortolo.eu › blog › article46 › json-license
JSON License considered harmful - Tanguy Ortolo
I think it was perhaps the PHP libraries for JSON which had this license, and an IBM development team wanted to use it so contacted their IBM legal team. They requested, and got, a license with an exemption allowing IBM and their customers to be able to use the software for evil.
Reddit
reddit.com › r/programmerhumor › why the original json license is considered non-free
r/ProgrammerHumor on Reddit: Why the original JSON license is considered non-free
September 14, 2016 - He really wants anyone to be allowed to use it, so if there is a corporation he deems "evil", he'll "grant them an exemption", thus making the statement "I think IBM (or whoever) is doing evil" in a lighthearted manner. ... People get it, it's just a really annoying troll for a joke. Think about it- for awhile JSON used to have this license.
JSON.org License Literally Says it "shall be used for Good, not Evil"
Can we get over this and move on? Anyone would think a lot of people were swindled of something that was clearly not ill-intended · Almost everything in there is dedicated to giving rights to the user instead of the other way around. In the end, even if a work is created "for evil", you can ... More on news.ycombinator.com
70
138
March 13, 2012Crockford on JSON license (2011)
It's also not clear to me that this does actually make it illegal for the military to just use it directly, even if they cared about following the letter of the law. If copyright is the real power behind the enforcement of open-source licenses, I'm not sure usage is something the license grantor ... More on news.ycombinator.com
59
249
July 21, 2023I give permission for IBM [...] to use JSLint for evil.
I know why IBM has to these issue so seriously but remember this when you wonder why big companies can't execute as quickly as startups. And remember, the library I wanted to use only had contributions from IBM developers and was under the favoured Eclipse licence · People keep arguing that ... More on news.ycombinator.com
55
186
January 30, 2013software - Who is held accountable in case of violation of JSON license's specific 'no evil' clause - the end user, the distro, or both? - Law Stack Exchange
While the MIT license allows relicensing under narrower terms, and JSON's license does not change that, removing an obligation is relicensing under broader terms. That's why IBM needed another license straight from the original author. More on law.stackexchange.com
LWN.net
lwn.net › Articles › 707510
Apache and the JSON license [LWN.net]
December 8, 2016 - That was deemed unlikely by Jagielski and Sam Ruby, who have both discussed it with him multiple times. Crockford has given at least one license exception in the past ("I give permission for IBM, its customers, partners, and minions, to use JSLint for evil."), though no one suggested pursuing that path for Apache projects.
GitHub
gist.github.com › kemitchell › fdc179d60dc88f0c9b76e5d38fe47076
crockford-on-json-license · GitHub
JSON -> JSLINT license · Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment ·
GitHub
github.com › IBM › sbom-utility › blob › main › license.json
sbom-utility/license.json at main · IBM/sbom-utility
April 17, 2023 - "This license requires separately licensed code and also includes copyleft terms."
Author IBM
Hacker News
news.ycombinator.com › item
JSON.org License Literally Says it "shall be used for Good, not Evil" | Hacker News
March 13, 2012 - Can we get over this and move on? Anyone would think a lot of people were swindled of something that was clearly not ill-intended · Almost everything in there is dedicated to giving rights to the user instead of the other way around. In the end, even if a work is created "for evil", you can ...
Hacker News
news.ycombinator.com › item
Crockford on JSON license (2011) | Hacker News
July 21, 2023 - It's also not clear to me that this does actually make it illegal for the military to just use it directly, even if they cared about following the letter of the law. If copyright is the real power behind the enforcement of open-source licenses, I'm not sure usage is something the license grantor ...
Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Douglas_Crockford
Douglas Crockford - Wikipedia
4 days ago - Affected open source developers have asked Crockford to change the license, but they have continued to use it. In 2022, Crockford changed the license in the JSON Java implementation to Public Domain.
Hacker News
news.ycombinator.com › item
I give permission for IBM [...] to use JSLint for evil. | Hacker News
January 30, 2013 - I know why IBM has to these issue so seriously but remember this when you wonder why big companies can't execute as quickly as startups. And remember, the library I wanted to use only had contributions from IBM developers and was under the favoured Eclipse licence · People keep arguing that ...
JSON
json.org › license.html
The JSON License
Copyright (c) 2002 JSON.org · Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, ...
Maggie Oates
maggieoates.com › blog › json-and-good-not-evil
JSON and & "Good, not Evil" - Maggie Oates
April 2, 2025 - However, he also describes how he’s frequently approached by individuals and companies wanting to use his license. After IBM asked for a separate license, he allowed IBM to use his software under the JSON license, writing,
Top answer 1 of 2
10
That “shall be used for Good, not Evil” clause is a moral category, not a legal category. From a legal perspective, it is likely meaningless and/or unenforceable. Neither Debian nor users of that software should expect any legal risk for using or distributing the software.
However, software under that license will never make it into Debian because it violates the Debian Free Software Guidelines. The DFSG is not a contract in the legal sense, but it forms part of the Debian social contract with its users. It is not in the interest of the Debian project to include software unless the software is free to use for any purpose. While the JSON license's usage restriction is likely meaningless in practice, it clearly tries do do exactly what the DFSG wants to prevent.
In the Open Source community, there is a broad consensus against the JSON license. The DFSG, slightly edited, was adopted as the Open Source Definition. Consequently, the JSON license also fails to be an Open Source license. The Free Software Foundation also looked at the license, and concluded: “This is a restriction on usage and thus conflicts with freedom 0. The restriction might be unenforcible, but we cannot presume that. Thus, the license is nonfree.”
2 of 2
4
"Say the Debian Project were to distribute jshint". That's distribution, not use. The distinction matters. This line is appended to the MIT license, which starts by enumerating different rights including both "use" and "distribute". Hence it's reasonable to assume that the term "used" in both clauses means the same. In other words, your assumption that "distribution" is the same as "use" is wrong, else the MIT license wouldn't have spelled that out.
While the MIT license allows relicensing under narrower terms, and JSON's license does not change that, removing an obligation is relicensing under broader terms. That's why IBM needed another license straight from the original author.
Coremedia
documentation.coremedia.com › dxp8 › 7.5.45-10 › manuals › used-opensource-en › webhelp › content › ch24.html
Third-Party Product Licenses/Chapter 24. JSON License
IBM Public License Version 1.0 - Bean Scripting Framework · James Clark License · Janino BSD License · JBehave License · JSON License · libjpeg-turbo BSD License · Lucene Snowball BSD License · MIT License · Mozilla Public License 1.1 · Spring Framework Notice ·
GitHub
github.com › spdx › license-list-data › blob › main › json › licenses.json
license-list-data/json/licenses.json at main · spdx/license-list-data
October 6, 2024 - Various data formats for the SPDX License List including RDFa, HTML, Text, and JSON - license-list-data/json/licenses.json at main · spdx/license-list-data
Author spdx
IBM
ibm.com › docs › en › spems › 6.2.0
Non IBM License
We cannot provide a description for this page right now
Reddit
reddit.com › r/programming › curiosity: the gnu foundation does not consider the json license as free because it requires that the software is used for good and not evil.
r/programming on Reddit: Curiosity: The GNU Foundation does not consider the JSON license as free because it requires that the software is used for Good and not Evil.
January 30, 2013 - It's very hard to participate in an ecosystem dominated by a product like that if you don't want to accept the license. The web is dominated by APIs and libraries that use JSON. It's not as easy as "don't use it". It's the same reason people complain about Facebook and its privacy problems while they still use it. ... Such as the GPL which IBM and others might be okay with.
Wayback Machine
web.archive.org › web › 20130203112329 › http: › › dev.hasenj.org › post › 3272592502
IBM and its minions …
They want to use something that I wrote in something that they wrote, and they were pretty sure they weren’t going to use it for evil, but they couldn’t say for sure about their customers. So could I give them a special license for that? Of course. So I wrote back – this happened literally two weeks ago – “I give permission for IBM, its customers, partners, and minions, to use JSLint for evil.”
Synopsys
synopsys.com › blogs › software-security › json-license-limitations
The JSON License and the Problem with "Good" and "Evil" | Black Duck Blog
December 8, 2016 - Concern with the license is not ... (read the whole text here) is typical of permissive licenses, with a grant of broad rights, an obligation of attribution, and a disclaimer of liability....
Reddit
reddit.com › r/programming › json.org license literally says it "shall be used for good, not evil"
r/programming on Reddit: JSON.org License Literally Says it "shall be used for Good, not Evil"
March 12, 2012 - Not really a fun fact IMO. Programmer humor stops being funny when it poses a legitimate issue to getting things done. And it's not just big companies like IBM - JSLint is banned from Debian because of its license.
Wayback Machine
web.archive.org › web › 20170722132351 › https: › dev.hasenj.org › post › 3272592502 › ibm-and-its-minions
IBM and its minions ...
February 13, 2011 - They want to use something that I wrote in something that they wrote, and they were pretty sure they weren’t going to use it for evil, but they couldn’t say for sure about their customers. So could I give them a special license for that? Of course. So I wrote back – this happened literally two weeks ago – “I give permission for IBM, its customers, partners, and minions, to use JSLint for evil.”