4 ms·

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with then. Or are you agreeing with me?

• tptacek 4y ago
  I mean, of all the reasons why 1.1 isn't a FOSS license, the morality clause is the least of the issues. I have two rebuttals to your original post: first, there's no pretense that 1.1 is a FOSS-comparable license, and second, there are obvious reasons why, even if they had done a more FOSS-acceptable 1.1 in every other regard, they might still need the morality clause.
  • LarryMullins 4y ago
    > I mean, of all the reasons why 1.1 isn't a FOSS license, the morality clause is the least of the issues The Zeroth Freedom is the most important, the freedom to use it.
    • tptacek 4y ago
      If what you're saying is that an exclusive, intrusive commercial license without a morality clause is more in the spirit of FOSS than a non-exclusive, non-intrusive free-use license with a morality clause, well, (1) that's a take, (2) I don't agree at all, and (3) we can probably just agree to disagree. At any rate: we've identified the disagreement, so let's take that as a win.
      • LarryMullins 4y ago
        I believe that morality clauses are the greatest threat to Free Software, particularly because they seem like a reasonable abridgement of the zeroth freedom when considered at first glance, and it is sometimes difficult to advocate against such abridgement without having nasty accusations thrown against you. Of all abridgements to software freedom, morality clauses seem to have found the widest popular support among people who style themselves as supporting Free Software.
        • tptacek 4y ago
          There is no mainstream FOSS license with a morality clause.
          • LarryMullins 4y ago
            Tautologically true.