4 ms·

Remember when people were apprehensive about using React because Facebook might weaponize your usage of it? This project is explicitly stating it can: you might

by jsgo 8y ago

Remember when people were apprehensive about using React because Facebook might weaponize your usage of it? This project is explicitly stating it can: you might not be on this list today, but there's nothing preventing you from being on it tomorrow. So do you want to commit to integrating it to your stack? While I'm not against their stance at all (at the end of the day, they've gotta do what is going to help them sleep at night and if it is barring the usage of their software, so be it), I really worry about the possibility of this becoming prevalent. What happens if libraries start restricting usage if you support the work of ACLU or Planned Parenthood or any other number of things? Now, I may be able to work with a specific library because I check the right boxes. But what if a collaborator can't because they'd violate it? This just feels like a slippery slope leading to a net negative for everyone

crankylinuxuser 8y ago
Indeed. I'll stick with unadulterated Open Source Definition licenses. I know those; I know how to integrate; I know how to comply. They're known entities, and licensing is well aware how and what they are used for. This tirefire of a license is untested and a "Social Justice of the Week". Frankly, the further I am away from the likes of these, the better. I also greatly appreciate what Stallman said, here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freed... " There would be programs banned for use in meat processing, programs banned only for pigs, programs banned only for cows, and programs limited to kosher foods. Someone who hates spinach might write a program allowing use for processing any vegetable except spinach, while a Popeye fan might allow use only for spinach. There would be music programs allowed only for rap music, and others allowed only for classical music. " - RMS
andrew_ 8y ago
The author of that change follows the same pattern in nearly every project found on their Github account, and many that they contribute to: MIT licenses with added prohibitions targeting specific groups. Disturbing and toxic to say the least.

by jsgo 8y ago

crankylinuxuser 8y ago

Indeed. I'll stick with unadulterated Open Source Definition licenses. I know those; I know how to integrate; I know how to comply. They're known entities, and licensing is well aware how and what they are used for. This tirefire of a license is untested and a "Social Justice of the Week". Frankly, the further I am away from the likes of these, the better. I also greatly appreciate what Stallman said, here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freed... " There would be programs banned for use in meat processing, programs banned only for pigs, programs banned only for cows, and programs limited to kosher foods. Someone who hates spinach might write a program allowing use for processing any vegetable except spinach, while a Popeye fan might allow use only for spinach. There would be music programs allowed only for rap music, and others allowed only for classical music. " - RMS

andrew_ 8y ago

The author of that change follows the same pattern in nearly every project found on their Github account, and many that they contribute to: MIT licenses with added prohibitions targeting specific groups. Disturbing and toxic to say the least.