• Chloé 🥕@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    10 hours ago

    this reminds me of the Hippocratic License, which comes with a bunch of modules restricting the use of software based on ethical considerations (for example, there’s a module forbidding the use by police, and another one forbidding the use by any institution on the BDS list)

    i think the FSF, in their eternal and unchallengeable wisdom (/s), also declared that it wasn’t foss

    • xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 hours ago

      I mean, they’re right that it’s not FOSS - the F is free as in available to anybody who may wish to use it, which is incompatible with defining who is allowed

    • Melmi@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      This is interesting! I’ve been exploring this and it seems like a neat little license.

      I’m not a lawyer, but one funny edge case I noticed is that the Extractive Industries module seems like it makes it a breach of license for crystal shops to use your software since you’re involved in the sale of minerals.

      I would tend to agree with FSF that it’s not FOSS, though. There are so many restrictions on this license and who can use it, based on fairly arbitrary things like “if CBP claims you’re doing forced labor” or “you do business in this specific region”. It might be more moral, but it’s a different approach than FOSS, which is less restrictive than more and prioritizes “Freedom” above everything else. Maybe it’s time for a different approach, though?