3 ms·

> 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 genoc

• 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.
    • kube-system 5y ago
      > Your evidence is incorrect. None of those are FOSS licenses. I said “variations of FOSS licenses”, which is precisely what I provided examples of. > Ultimately they infringe on the most basic right: to use the software for whatever you want. Unless of course, “whatever you want” includes not publishing your changes. Copyleft does not permit people to do “whatever they want”. It places specific requirements on people who use that code and punishes them under penalty of copyright law if they do not. You’re touching on the reason that some people prefer public domain waivers instead of copyleft licenses. If you want an example of disagreements in FOSS: case in point. > FOSS means something. None of the examples you gave are FOSS. There are factually multiple definitions of what falls under the umbrella of FOSS. FSF and OSI are certainly prominent. There are other individuals and organizations who disagree. I think it’s kind of funny that people want to argue that the majority opinions on licensing are the only valid opinions on software licensing. That’s exactly how people dismissed RMS in the 80s and 90s.
      • the_af 5y ago
        > Unless of course, “whatever you want” includes not publishing your changes. Copyleft does not permit people to do “whatever they want” You can absolutely not publish your changes, where did you get the idea FOSS forces you to publish? FOSS imposes restrictions upon distribution; you're free to use the software however you want if you keep it to yourself. > I said “variations of FOSS licenses”, which is precisely what I provided examples of. In that case, you introduced something irrelevant. A variation of FOSS which introduces changes that break the fundamental tenets stops being FOSS. Hence, you cannot get away with using the term "a variation of FOSS", because it's a variation that happens not to be FOSS. Your other opinions of why people like or dislike this or that license or philosophy, comparisons to RMS's early days, etc, are all red herrings. They are worth debating, but completely irrelevant for deciding what is or isn't FOSS. A license that restrict usage by Russians, or in nuclear reactors, or that requires you to first agree abortion is wrong (or right) is fundamentally not FOSS. Whether this is a good or a bad thing is on you, but also irrelevant in this context.