body: The [JSLint license](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/douglascrockford/JSLint/master/jslint.js) specifies that code "shall be used for Good, not Evil". It's been a source of (what appears to be) alarmist and ridiculously overblown [controversy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSLint#License) for a while now.
  
  
  I've noticed this conversation tends to attract a lot of developers who really like open source, know next to nothing about the law, and reach the conclusion that this might have real legal implications.
  
  
  I'll freely admit I'm a developer who knows next to nothing about the law, but it seems obvious that since the license makes no attempt to precisely define either "good" or "evil", and they don't already have legal definitions (as far as I know), or even consistent definitions in common parlance, no sane judge would attempt to enforce that part of the license.
  
  
  Then again, my uninformed opinion is just as uninformed as all the uninformed opinions I'm disagreeing with, so I could be completely off base with my analysis.
  
  
  So what is the worst thing that could (realistically, legally) happen to someone using JSLint because of that specific section of the license?
  
  
  
title: Worst realistic effect in the U.S. of JSLint license?