We can't make a licence that's incompatible with evil, absent a legal definition of evil, but we should be able to make a licence that's incompatible with capitalism. In some sense, the GPL already is.
-
-
-
Yes
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Fuck yes this is excellent news
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @mgattozzi @porglezomp and
You can, but there's a couple of practical problems: a) you create an incompatible license situation (iirc such a restriction is GPL-incompatible, and other projects may not incorporate your code since the restrictions are cumulative) b) there may be workarounds that 1/n
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @alercah @mgattozzi and
people come up with, such as hiring a contractor to use your code instead c) it's not futureproof and most OSS license terms are not written revocably, making it difficult for you to expand the banlist to include the Next Big Evil d) enforcement is a PITA.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @alercah @mgattozzi and
Worth noting that GPL is not toxic to corporations relying largely on hosted software, as it only infects redistribution and not use. You need the extremely unpopular AGPL for that.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @alercah @mgattozzi and
Oh forgot to mention under a) that Debian explicitly bans such license restrictions too, if memory serves.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
-
Replying to @mgattozzi @porglezomp and
Ok, checked, both the DFSG and the OSI definition of Open Source require non-discrmination against both potential users and particular uses. This is why Redis's experimentation with new dual licensing schemes failed to meet those definitions.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
OSI are cops.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.