This has been pointed out before, but the Hippocratic license is not an open source license as defined by the OSI[1]. The author of the licence, Coraline Ada Eh

This has been pointed out before, but the Hippocratic license is not an open source license as defined by the OSI[1]. The author of the licence, Coraline Ada Ehmke, argues that OSI does not define what is and isn't open source[2]. My personal view is that re-using a well-established name (brand?) for a purpose not aligning to the brand's mission[3] is disingenuous. On a broader level I don't think it will be helpful to either side: detracting from true open source licences on one side and detracting from arguments made by Coraline on the other (since every announcement will be subject to comments like this). That's why I'm pleased that the new organisation is called the Organization for Ethical Source. I think that there are plenty of interesting arguments around the Hippocratic licence, and calling it "Ethical Source" would be (IMHO) a much better term, both from describing what it does and avoiding the comparisons to open source licenses / criticisms from open source purists. [1] https://twitter.com/OpenSourceOrg/status/1176229398929977344 https://twitter.com/OpenSourceOrg/status/1176229398929977344 [2] https://twitter.com/CoralineAda/status/1175878569169432582 https://twitter.com/CoralineAda/status/1175878569169432582 [3] https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd