121–130 of 229 posts
The benefits are dispersed broadly while the “evil” appears to be more concentrated and easier to identify.
Don’t lose sight of the benefits.
(PS We contribute to projects and individuals.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are already so many ways (and reasons) not to do free or open source software. People who find them convincing are using them. People who don't generally are not. It seems like the author of the post is just potentially having a change of mind from one side to the other, which barely even seems noteworthy.
> There are already so many ways (and reasons) not to do free or open source software. People who find them convincing are using them. To be honest, I don't think the space between GPL/MIT and commercial closed source is explored enough. I'm aware there's a few examples of things in between, but they are not common knowledge and they don't satisfy everyone. It is not a space that is easy to search online for establis…
Sounds good, but what happens when everyone else uses ideological purity filters too? Because if what this guy is saying is reasonable, then it immediately follows that it's also reasonable for every ideology and religion to exclude the ones they don't like. For example: how does an antisimetic software license strike you? Because that would be a perfectly reasonable license for some people to enact, and fully justif…
No, what is deemed evil by this blog, is what exploites open source. For open source software, that's very relevant. Just like anti democratic values are relevant for democracies. Don't straw man this.
> Overall, these ideas lead me to believe that the open source movement needs to see itself as in a larger social context. Can we shift the balance of power away from massive companies and their massive harms? Can we prevent Nazis from using our software? Should we even try?
> I know my goal: shift the default in open source from “it’s free for anyone to use” to “please don’t use this if you’re evil”. I don’t just want to do this for my little project; I want to slowly change the discourse. I’m not sure how to do that effectively, if it’s even possible.
People can reasonably agree on what "Open Source" means. Once you start trying to define "bad guys" and exclude them, you will get dozens of incompatible definitions and no consensus, and as a result, you'll have numerous incompatible ecosystems rather than one.
"Open Source" isn't perfect, not by any means. But any purported replacement for it has to be so obviously better that people are willing to switch and build consensus on the replacement.
Creating such license will indeed discourage lawful corporations from making use of it because of the legal uncertainty.
It will discourage open source projects for making use of it because it's not open source and it's incompatible either from a legal or philosophical standpoint.
The only ones who would not discourage would be the ones you actually want to prevent using it since they would likely not care about the license terms at all and just use it regardless.
The end result would be essentially a dead project that would be either ignored by the programmer community if it started out with this license or be forked like what happened when other open source projects switched licenses example redis being replaced by valkey.
May I add: You’d have to stop using VsCode or TypeScript, or even npm and Chrome, if you think big means bad, and you don’t want to fuel big corporations.
One can see how rediculous the whole idea of limiting FOSS in a “who can use this” way is.
Truly free will always win in the long way. Or you don’t think, a paid dev with some AI can replace your package fairly quickly?