4 ms·

It would not be open source if you didn't allow Trump supporters to use it. https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd The license must not discrim

It would not be open source if you didn't allow Trump supporters to use it. https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons. There is no such thing as pro-life or pro-choice open source software.

africajam 10y ago
I did not know about the open source definition. Is that just a guide line or does it carry some weight? Also, is it discrimination if I give users a choice? You can use my software whoever you are, you just have to disagree with racism.
- gus_massa 10y ago
  It doesn't carry any weight, it's just a label. It's like the difference between open source and free software. They are just definitions made by someone. You can write any license you want (but get a lawyer). The concrete problems is that this license with the no-Trump-supporters clause will not be compatible with most of the license that most people think when someone talk as a open source or free software. So for most people this will not be open source or free software. (I'm not a lawyer, so please get someone to review my opinions.) * You can't copy code from GPL/LGPL licensed software to your project, and someone else can't copy code from your project to a GPL/LGPL project. This is important if you are planning to copy any code from a GPL/LGPL library. * You can copy code from MIT/BSD licensed software to your project, but someone else can't copy code from your project to a MIT/BSD project. Hey, you can even copy code from a MIT/BSD to a project that has a license that allow to use it only for evil purposes, like killing kitties. IANAL.
- current_call 10y ago
  I did not know about the open source definition. Is that just a guide line or does it carry some weight? It carries the weight of the names of the people who support it. Take a look at who is involved in it. Ian Murdock, founder of Debian, is a co-founder for the OSI. Also, is it discrimination if I give users a choice? You can use my software whoever you are, you just have to disagree with racism. Rephrasing it doesn't change anything.

africajam 10y ago

I did not know about the open source definition. Is that just a guide line or does it carry some weight? Also, is it discrimination if I give users a choice? You can use my software whoever you are, you just have to disagree with racism.

gus_massa 10y ago
It doesn't carry any weight, it's just a label. It's like the difference between open source and free software. They are just definitions made by someone. You can write any license you want (but get a lawyer). The concrete problems is that this license with the no-Trump-supporters clause will not be compatible with most of the license that most people think when someone talk as a open source or free software. So for most people this will not be open source or free software. (I'm not a lawyer, so please get someone to review my opinions.) * You can't copy code from GPL/LGPL licensed software to your project, and someone else can't copy code from your project to a GPL/LGPL project. This is important if you are planning to copy any code from a GPL/LGPL library. * You can copy code from MIT/BSD licensed software to your project, but someone else can't copy code from your project to a MIT/BSD project. Hey, you can even copy code from a MIT/BSD to a project that has a license that allow to use it only for evil purposes, like killing kitties. IANAL.
current_call 10y ago
I did not know about the open source definition. Is that just a guide line or does it carry some weight? It carries the weight of the names of the people who support it. Take a look at who is involved in it. Ian Murdock, founder of Debian, is a co-founder for the OSI. Also, is it discrimination if I give users a choice? You can use my software whoever you are, you just have to disagree with racism. Rephrasing it doesn't change anything.