The JSON license, as well as the jslint (and the 'jshint' derivative) license, is an otherwise unmodified version of the MIT License except for one peculiar clause which reads:
The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.
As a result, some software developers and distributors take the (IMO) unfortunate route of not using, or not distributing, the software components licensed under these terms (that is, except for those who managed to get an exception clause added to them).
One such example is Debian. In a open issue to the jshint repository, some users voice their complain that the atypical clause prevents Debian from packaging jshint in their official repositories.
What I want to ask is: say the Debian Project were to distribute jshint in their official repositories. Assume this act is qualifiable as 'good' (not evil). No violation of the license so far, I suppose. Now consider the case of a Debian user who uses his Debian computer to practice evil (for instance, extortion, terrorism, you name it).
Who would be liable for violation of the license terms? The Debian user, who performed the wrongdoing; the Debian Project, who distributed the software; or both?
In other words: if a court were to take the clause at face value and enforce it, would the user be the sole defendant, or would the Debian Project also?
The clause states "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil" - but I assume the distribution of the software by the Debian Project qualifies as use (right?). In that context, is the Debian Project liable for whatever evil their users might be willing to execute by means of a computer running the Debian OS?
Or, I suppose, the same question in other words would be: Is it a risk for the Debian Project to distribute jshint in their official repos?