Stopping bad guys from using my open source project (feedback wanted)
35 comments
·November 30, 2025cadamsdotcom
Open source is a gift you’re giving.
Companies take that gift and use it to provide a service for cheaper than it would otherwise be if they had to build it all themselves.
You are already benefiting from open source - but it is a tiny benefit and subtle and very indirect and very diffuse.
Licensing is thorny but it’s personal choice too.. would you use a project whose license is “use it for now unless or until I decide you’re evil at my discretion”.. probably not. Probably, someone else would get the users you have now, and the corresponding popularity.
It is a tough choice, but it’s a lovely and important thing you’re doing when you provide the gift of open source software.
BugsJustFindMe
> Companies take that gift and use it to provide a service for cheaper than it would otherwise be if they had to build it all themselves.
Citation needed.
Dusseldorf
Cheaper for the company. Whether they pass those savings on to their customers is another matter.
WalterBright
> Whether they pass those savings on to their customers is another matter.
Competition determines the price, not COGS.
conception
Lots and lots of AWS.
sirodoht
Free software is about freedom. Restricting it from anyone means it's not free. There is no requirement that we must create free software but if it's called free I think it should always have the basic qualities of freedom; not only when it fits our purposes and our values.
charles_f
> shift the default in open source from “it’s free for anyone to use” to “please don’t use this if you’re evil”
Point the author makes is precisely that they don't want to do free software, and they'd like to convince you not to do free software
mixologic
Take a look at the original json.org license and all the problems that the "not for evil" clause they added to it had caused.
Ultimately though, if you put a non free license on your libraries, somebody will cry foul, fork it, and evil will still happen.
dontdoxxme
Some background in https://gist.github.com/kemitchell/fdc179d60dc88f0c9b76e5d38...
Basically you end up with something not legally enforceable. And will someone actually doing evil care about your license?
PunchyHamster
They would if they could get sued. But it's unlikely, so they won't.
Best cure is to use GPL, any evil company would not be able to handle *having* to give back anything to project they used /s
TheCraiggers
Well then you just use some copyleft language to ensure the same license (or something you deem compatible) is used.
Just because you can fork something doesn't always mean you're able to just change the license.
elmerfud
It really seems like you just don't want to be open source. That's your choice.
uyzstvqs
Your project would no longer be open source. It would become source-available proprietary software.
mnau
Make it source available. It won't help, but you might feel better.
DuckStation (PS1 emulator) changed license from GPL to CC-BY-NC, because Chinese manufacturers were including it in their hw devices. Somehow I doubt that helped.
linksnapzz
"No man is wise enough to know all the evil that he does." -Rochefoucald
canyp
I don't know if you're just joking but this is the crux of the problem and what they are asking for has deep implications. If somebody can thoroughly define evil in a software license, please publish it for review so that we can learn from it.
zzo38computer
I am not a lawyer and do not know all of the other things, but I will write what my idea is.
Some possibilities (while still being FOSS) might be:
- Use AGPL3 license, and do not make exceptions. (Alternatively, make an exception but make it possible to revoke the exception.)
- Design the program for uses that are not bad so that bad uses might be more difficult.
- Sue them, if this becomes necessary.
These combination might make it difficult for bad guys to use it for bad purposes, although some organizations might ignore the license and use it anyways, but you cannot really prevent that.
WalterBright
If you prevent licensing software to large corporations, small corporations won't use it, either, because small corporations may get acquired by large ones. Such a license would be a "poison pill".
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.
We picked the Boost license for the D Language Foundation because it is the closest to public domain we could find.
Besides, why would "bad guys" be deterred by a license, anyway?
arthurcolle
Why isn't there a "if I like you you can use it"
I like you @WalterBright you can use any of my stuff even if you get acquired
limagnolia
Umm, there is. Basically, thats the default in most of the world. My recomendation if that is what you want to do, is to put a note in the readme and in LICENSE.txt that says "this project is copyright by me. If you want to use i, reach out to me and if I like you, I will give you a license". Then if you like someone, give them a written statement that you like them, and grant them permission to use your project(s), and under what terms, if any.
canyp
If your project is a library, stamping a copyleft license on it will shun away corporations, AI training aside. Bad guys won't care either way.
The "no evil" goal is commendable but impossible.
tasn
Post is dated 2026-01-01, I guess it was maybe not meant to be released yet?
Just make it GPL, there is no chance evil company would tolerate the enforcement of giving back, let alone lawyers to make sure they comply.