5 ms·

Well, yes. But this goes (or did, before the author fixed it) against the most widespread and accepted definitions of FOSS (nobody from the OSI or FSF would acc

by the_af 5y ago

Well, yes. But this goes (or did, before the author fixed it) against the most widespread and accepted definitions of FOSS (nobody from the OSI or FSF would accept this as a free licence, and those are the two major camps), so it cannot be considered a FOSS licence that most people would accept. It makes one wary, too. The weaponization of Open Source is very dangerous and sets a bad precedent. So Russia are the bad guys now, but who's next? Are you sure it's not going to be your country? Think about this: forget Russia, a good chunk of the world thinks the US is a bad faith actor on many occasions. Would it still be a free license one that forbid people from the US from using the software?

kube-system 5y ago
There have been licenses that do this same kind of stuff before. There have been dozens of variations of FOSS licenses over the years that prohibit things like use for nuclear facilities, use in weapon systems, use in genocide, etc. That's not to say I think any of this is a good idea. I think it's insanely naive to try to contractually block a dictator from using your software in the first place. Do these people think they're going to sue the dictator in the dictator's court? The Russian government is already considering legalizing piracy of proprietary software to evade sanctions; they DGAF about these licenses. I mostly just think that the OSI and FSF's "all or nothing" stance on some topics is a bit extremist. A hypothetical license that said "You can do anything with this software except launching missiles at kittens" is pretty damn in line with the spirit of FOSS, even though the OSI or FSF would never approve it. I understand they take that ideological angle because they are thought leaders and need a clear message, not a slippery slope, but this is where I think it's reasonable to be reasonable. I think it's better to criticize these types of "weaponized" FOSS licenses by pointing out that they're entirely ineffective wastes of time. There are plenty of real merits to undermine these licenses, which is why they haven't caught on previously. Saying "that's not open source" is just like a chocolate snob telling their friend that their Hershey's bar is "totally not real chocolate" That being said, we're beyond the realm of software licenses in this conflict anyway. Sanctions have already started cutting people off from FOSS projects, regardless of license.
- the_af 5y ago
  > There have been dozens of variations of FOSS licenses over the years that prohibit things like use for nuclear facilities, use in weapon systems, use in genocide, etc. I'm not aware of any FOSS license that states things like that. I think you're wrong. > A hypothetical license that said "You can do anything with this software except launching missiles at kittens" is pretty damn in line with the spirit of FOSS No, it's not in line with the spirit of FOSS, but rather against it. I understand that you have this vision about a kind of license you would like for software. I cannot argue with that -- it's your vision and it's your right to have it. The problem is that it's not any kind of FOSS license that is recognized as such (i.e. as FOSS) by the wider community. You can call it FOSS but nobody else will.
  - kube-system 5y ago
    > I think you're wrong. Here's examples: https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause-No-Nuclear-License.html https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause-No-Nuclear-License.ht... https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause-No-Military-License.html https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause-No-Military-License.h... https://spdx.org/licenses/Hippocratic-2.1.html https://spdx.org/licenses/Hippocratic-2.1.html > The problem is that it's not any kind of FOSS license that is recognized as such (i.e. as FOSS) by the wider community. You can call it FOSS but nobody else will. There is evidence to the contrary. There are popular community supported projects that are often colloquially described as open source which use licenses that are not OSI/FSF.
    - the_af 5y ago
      > There is evidence to the contrary. Your evidence is incorrect. None of those are FOSS licenses. If you google their names, you'll see each sparked controversy, and ultimately the SPDX doesn't exclusively list FOSS licenses. Ultimately they infringe on the most basic right: to use the software for whatever you want. > There are popular community supported projects that are often colloquially described as open source which use licenses that are not OSI/FSF. Nobody cares about "colloquially". Colloquially, Microsoft in the past tried to pull a fast one and pass their Shared Source initiative as "open source", which it wasn't. FOSS means something. None of the examples you gave are FOSS.

by the_af 5y ago

kube-system 5y ago

There have been licenses that do this same kind of stuff before. There have been dozens of variations of FOSS licenses over the years that prohibit things like use for nuclear facilities, use in weapon systems, use in genocide, etc. That's not to say I think any of this is a good idea. I think it's insanely naive to try to contractually block a dictator from using your software in the first place. Do these people think they're going to sue the dictator in the dictator's court? The Russian government is already considering legalizing piracy of proprietary software to evade sanctions; they DGAF about these licenses. I mostly just think that the OSI and FSF's "all or nothing" stance on some topics is a bit extremist. A hypothetical license that said "You can do anything with this software except launching missiles at kittens" is pretty damn in line with the spirit of FOSS, even though the OSI or FSF would never approve it. I understand they take that ideological angle because they are thought leaders and need a clear message, not a slippery slope, but this is where I think it's reasonable to be reasonable. I think it's better to criticize these types of "weaponized" FOSS licenses by pointing out that they're entirely ineffective wastes of time. There are plenty of real merits to undermine these licenses, which is why they haven't caught on previously. Saying "that's not open source" is just like a chocolate snob telling their friend that their Hershey's bar is "totally not real chocolate" That being said, we're beyond the realm of software licenses in this conflict anyway. Sanctions have already started cutting people off from FOSS projects, regardless of license.

the_af 5y ago
> There have been dozens of variations of FOSS licenses over the years that prohibit things like use for nuclear facilities, use in weapon systems, use in genocide, etc. I'm not aware of any FOSS license that states things like that. I think you're wrong. > A hypothetical license that said "You can do anything with this software except launching missiles at kittens" is pretty damn in line with the spirit of FOSS No, it's not in line with the spirit of FOSS, but rather against it. I understand that you have this vision about a kind of license you would like for software. I cannot argue with that -- it's your vision and it's your right to have it. The problem is that it's not any kind of FOSS license that is recognized as such (i.e. as FOSS) by the wider community. You can call it FOSS but nobody else will.
- kube-system 5y ago
  > I think you're wrong. Here's examples: https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause-No-Nuclear-License.html https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause-No-Nuclear-License.ht... https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause-No-Military-License.html https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause-No-Military-License.h... https://spdx.org/licenses/Hippocratic-2.1.html https://spdx.org/licenses/Hippocratic-2.1.html > The problem is that it's not any kind of FOSS license that is recognized as such (i.e. as FOSS) by the wider community. You can call it FOSS but nobody else will. There is evidence to the contrary. There are popular community supported projects that are often colloquially described as open source which use licenses that are not OSI/FSF.
  - the_af 5y ago
    > There is evidence to the contrary. Your evidence is incorrect. None of those are FOSS licenses. If you google their names, you'll see each sparked controversy, and ultimately the SPDX doesn't exclusively list FOSS licenses. Ultimately they infringe on the most basic right: to use the software for whatever you want. > There are popular community supported projects that are often colloquially described as open source which use licenses that are not OSI/FSF. Nobody cares about "colloquially". Colloquially, Microsoft in the past tried to pull a fast one and pass their Shared Source initiative as "open source", which it wasn't. FOSS means something. None of the examples you gave are FOSS.