Ryan Grove, a developer and former Yahoo engineer, writes about web development, security, and software licensing.
HN links it for his post on JSMin and Google Code's ban over its "Good, not Evil" license, and for his bad Mozy backup experience.
That doesn't work at all if it is the actual wording. For point 1 you can find warranty wording in any number of open source or creative commons licenses.
For the second, objectionable requires a definition. For example many would consider the US drone assassination program objectionable, and hence tar US companies and people with the same brush. Does that mean US companies and people can use the software? How many steps do they have to be removed (eg is providing the payroll software to the defense contractor a problem?)
http://wonko.com/post/jsmin-isnt-welcome-on-google-code https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hCimLnIsDA
Because of copyright laws, people can do virtually nothing with software. If you actually want to give the user freedoms - see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html - then pick a well known free software license since it will have already addressed all these issues.
crashplan is having a sale until tuesday, after that their regular prices will go up.
http://b4.crashplan.com/consumer/store.vtl
i chose crashplan over mozy, after reading some bad mozy reviews (http://wonko.com/post/it_turns_out_mozy_isnt_so_hot_after_all for instance) . I have the family plan and uploaded 200gb so far, their upload speeds are pretty good.
The only feature I'm still waiting for, is so you can specify different backup sets to archive to your local HD and to their online sevice, but that feature should be realeased with their next update. Other than that I love crashplan, especially the eature that you cannot disable it for longer than 24 hours.
You can also seed your initial backup, that way you don't have long upload times.
They signed an employee code of conduct which included "Don't Be Evil".
The employee code of conduct, that they were made to sign as a condition of employment has the directive "Don't Be Evil" in it? Did Google legal review that document? Although often made fun of, there is a reason IBM legal required a license change in JSLint to get out of its "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil." license clause. Heck, Google Code wouldn't host JSMin-PHP because of that clause ( https://wonko.com/post/jsmin-isnt-welcome-on-google-code ).
I wonder how Sencha (http://www.sencha.com/) feels about how the NSA is clearly using their ExtJS framework given the screenshots.
I guess this kind of puts different perspective to the whole debate that came from JSMin's "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil." clause (http://wonko.com/post/jsmin-isnt-welcome-on-google-code) given that conceivably your open source framework might be a significant part of something like this.
Be careful with Mozy. If you haven't done a test restore, I strongly recommend you try one now. The Mozy restore process is extremely broken and has been for years.
You can read about my horrible experience with Mozy (and the horrible experiences of hundreds of commenters) here: http://wonko.com/post/it_turns_out_mozy_isnt_so_hot_after_all
People always talk about Google's "Do no evil" policy as being more fundamental than their other business concerns, but they've demonstrated in the past that it comes secondary.
http://wonko.com/post/jsmin-isnt-welcome-on-google-code
The "Do no evil" policy has no use if they can't accept it into their legalese.