3 ms·
You know what? I’d like a world where people don’t decide that software licensing is an ideal place to wage ideological war and inflict harm on their enemies. I
by fennecfoxen 6y ago
You know what? I’d like a world where people don’t decide that software licensing is an ideal place to wage ideological war and inflict harm on their enemies. I want collaboration and communication between people not in perfect agreement. I understand this is an overtly political stance; I am willing to commit to it as a positive and trust that it will benefit communities and the world at large, and that fragmentation into polarized ideological splinters will harm communities and the world at large (and enable our well resourced enemies to strike us in our weakness).
Because this is a linter, that will help coders code well, and not a facial recognition suite that will facilitate totalitarian regimes as they crack down on dissidents.
- DSMan195276 6y agoI think it's worth pointing out that software licenses are what enable the kind of world you're describing. Unless you're suggesting massively changing copyright law (Which may be a fair thing to suggest), the typical well known software licenses enable lots of code sharing and contributions by making it very easy to understand the terms on which you can use it. Without them, you could never easily share or take code contributions without potentially having tons of copyright issues. Put another way, the issue here is not software licenses in general, it's the fact the author picked an obscure one with with dubious requirements. Picking no license would have actually been worse than the license he had.