3 ms·
This definitely does not abide by the requirements of an open source license[0], particularly the discrimination against persons/groups clause. AFAIK, no licens
by eindiran 7y ago
This definitely does not abide by the requirements of an open source license[0], particularly the discrimination against persons/groups clause. AFAIK, no license that mentions not using the code for "evil" has ever been accepted by the OSI.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for vaccinations, but there are definitely interactions with religions that don't permit vaccination (e.g. [1]) that mean this license is definitely discriminating against particular groups. I should hope the OSI doesn't accept licenses like "the MIT license, but people who practice Jainism and Zoroastrianism are disallowed from using it".
[0] https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science#Healing_practices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science#Healing_prac...
- cynix 7y ago> religions that don't permit vaccination That shouldn’t be allowed in the first place. Imagine if I created a religion that doesn’t permit paying taxes. Would the government really allow me to do that?
- eindiran 7y agoI am not commenting on whether that should be allowed or not: I am saying only that (1) religions like this absolutely do exist, (2) this license obviously discriminates against them, and (3) because of the wording of the OSD, this license cannot meet the definition because of the interaction between (2) and the discrimination against persons/groups clause. This is not a value judgement on my part.
- fortran77 7y agoI agree. This seems like a perfect blend of slacktivism + virtue signaling. The creator believes he's saving lives by making a web page.