3 ms·
There's a few licenses like that, but I'm not aware of a major project using them and they also don't get recognized as Open-Source licenses, due to the criteri
by detaro 5y ago
There's a few licenses like that, but I'm not aware of a major project using them and they also don't get recognized as Open-Source licenses, due to the criteria for those banning restrictions on specific use cases.
- boffinAudio 5y agoAfter some research I've come to the conclusion that the License can't have such restrictions and still be considered 'free', but a "Terms of Use" clause elsewhere in the code can be used to restrict how programs built from the free code can be used. Quite an interesting conundrum, this - but I suppose one that is simply the state of things: if you want your stuff to be free and open, you cannot release it to the world and expect/demand that it will not be weaponized, as is the case with any and all technology. Sobering.
- kragen 5y agoNo, that is not correct. If a clause is limiting how programs built from the free code can be copied (or sold, imported, publicly performed, etc., the various exclusive rights granted under copyright, which do not include "used") then that clause is part of the license. It is perfectly legal for a license to discriminate against a field of use such as weaponization, in which case it fails to be free software or open source software.
- boffinAudio 5y agoRight, thanks for the clarification and it does in fact make sense. Sobering times for those of us who don't want our F/OSS products used by the war machine.
- kragen 5y agoJust write all the documentation in Chinese or Hindi, maybe.
- boffinAudio 5y agoI guess its time to learn a Russian-based programming language...