61–70 of 229 posts
A possible alternative would be using a standard licence like MIT but putting swears/slurs in either the author list or the code itself so using it would be a PR risk, and this could work as a deterrent against commercial usage.
If you prevent licensing software to large corporations, small corporations won't use it, either, because small corporations may get acquired by large ones. Such a license would be a "poison pill". I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. We picked the Boost license for the D Language Foundation because it is the closest to public domain we could find. Besides, why would "bad guys" be deterred by a license, an…
Such a poison pill could be considered a feature insofar as it discourages consolidation of companies.
If you prevent licensing software to large corporations, small corporations won't use it, either, because small corporations may get acquired by large ones. Such a license would be a "poison pill". I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. We picked the Boost license for the D Language Foundation because it is the closest to public domain we could find. Besides, why would "bad guys" be deterred by a license, an…
Why isn't there a "if I like you you can use it" I like you @WalterBright you can use any of my stuff even if you get acquired
There's not a whole lot of point to acquiring Boost licensed software. Of course, they could always acquire me and pay me handsomely!
If you prevent licensing software to large corporations, small corporations won't use it, either, because small corporations may get acquired by large ones. Such a license would be a "poison pill". I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. We picked the Boost license for the D Language Foundation because it is the closest to public domain we could find. Besides, why would "bad guys" be deterred by a license, an…
I imagine because we're talking about a subcategory of "bad guys" who still like to stay within the confines of the law (supposedly at least).
Good luck. Defining evil objectively is, of course, a challenge. But even with an unambiguous definition in hand, enforcing or detecting it is nigh impossible. Especially since the truly evil will simply lie, ignore the terms of your license, and use it anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> shift the default in open source from “it’s free for anyone to use” to “please don’t use this if you’re evil” Point the author makes is precisely that they don't want to do free software, and they'd like to convince you not to do free software
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.
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 established wisdom and comparisons in.
Who cares. The end result of this is that we all get to use amazing software, often for free.
Think of your open source contributions as a gift to all of humanity. I wouldn't get too hung up on the fact that bad people can use it. Hammer makers don't add conditions on who can buy their products, even if it could be used as a murder weapon. Take solace in the fact that your work is creating far more good than evil.
You're increasing the rate of innovation in the world. And we're all grateful for it.
I created a software license which is effectively BSD, but lists priority boycott targets and rationale from BDS (boycott-divest-sanction for Palestinian liberation), in an information-only section that has no bearing on the software freedoms and restrictions, but is nevertheless required to be copied as part of the license[1]. I don't actually recommend using this specific license yet, because the text from bdsmovem…
[1]: https://polyformproject.org/licenses/noncommercial/1.0.0/