Add GNU Justified Public License about bad-licenses

[Saltssaumure]

This is truly astonishing, but also adding this license to the repo would be breaking the no changes requirement of the GPL itself.

[lordofpipes]

This is truly astonishing, but also adding this license to the repo would be breaking the no changes requirement of the GPL itself.

Fear not! The FSF allows unofficial translations of the license text, as long as it indicates that it has been modified, such as a renamed title. They also say that you may use the terms of the license to make new licenses, as long as you don't call it GPL — this is how AGPL started. Now... this justified license is a bit odd because it only renames it once, at the top of the document, so maybe that is gray area.

Anyways, this entire repository is probably fair use under US copyright doctrine. It has an educational nature and it's cherry picking just the license text (and not surrounding documentation) for study. Additionally, the license itself is a parody, so under fair use doctrine we're in "parody of a parody" territory at this point, if that means anything.

Alternative solution: write a crayon license that immediately void all laws the moment you look at the bad-licenses collection, so that infringement becomes logically impossible :D

[ErikMcClure]

This is truly astonishing, but also adding this license to the repo would be breaking the no changes requirement of the GPL itself.

This is not how the law works. The no changes clause applies only if you are misrepresenting the changed GPL as being the original GPL without either changing the title, as mentioned by @lordofpipes, or by otherwise mentioning that you have made changes. This means that writing a parody of the GPL and misrepresenting it as the real GPL would actually be in violation of that clause, because you give up parody protections if it's not obvious that it is a parody. Adding a license to the repo with a description that says "an incorrectly modified GPL license that violates the terms of the GPL" would be entirely legal, because there is no misrepresentation. Adding this license isn't a problem because they changed the title, so it's not the GPL anymore.

Some proprietary licenses do attempt to claim copyright on the license themselves, but aside from abusing DMCA requests that never make it front of a judge, a properly cited copy of a publicly available piece of text is a pretty clear-cut fair use case in pretty much any functioning legal system. Your mileage may vary depending on how functional your local legal system is, however.