No, because it is impossible. Open Source works by asserting that if "intellectual property" is a valid concept, then the proponents of "intellectual property" must abide by the license, i.e. by turning the premise on its head, the licenses defend against software companies.
-
-
-
Palantir is not relying on copyright protection for their operations and profits, because they are not selling software that can be easily copied, but a service. Their whole business depends on secrecy. If they'd be found in violation of an OSS license, that would be a smaller…
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
An obvious and immutable fact of open source is that you have no control over who is going to use it. The only practical mitigation to this is to not open source your code at all. Apart from that, not accepting PRs/bugs/donations from the offenders is all you can do.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
No because the very definition of OS prevents it. You could change the software license so it prevents use by certain groups but it's no longer open source, specifically item 6 of the Open Source Definition. So you can have one or the other but not both.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It might be productive to convene lawyers, immigration advocates, and open source devs to figure out how to do this in a serious way.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Not unless they already licensed it under terms so onerous that nobody with an open source license policy would use their code. That said, it may be possible to add transparency requirements to licenses for future projects that give some insight on how they're being used.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- 3 more replies
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
