3 ms·

>Time to exclude EU government use from all your open source projects in the license. You can't. Well you can, but then by definition they would no longer be

by M2Ys4U 2y ago

>Time to exclude EU government use from all your open source projects in the license. You can't. Well you can, but then by definition they would no longer be open source.

hcfman 2y ago
Relatively open is also okay when they killing small players off. Excluding government usage is hardly very closed. Honestly some folks have worked for years on open source software, that government also benefited from, only to find that now the costs involved in paying for someone to certify your software plus the cost of the risk is too high. Politicians need to feel consequences did their decisions.
Findecanor 2y ago
According to the OSI's "Open Source Definition" [1], indeed. It forbids discrimination against any person or group to use the software. Most public source code repositories on the web require every piece of software published on them to be under an OSI-approved license. Not licensing under an OSI-approved license could therefore impede the chances of getting your software distributed and used. I've been thinking on a related issue: perhaps there is a need to formulate a wider but still closed definition that repositories could adopt that would also include some "ethical" source code licenses and "Non-AI licenses" [2]. [1] https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd [2] https://github.com/non-ai-licenses/non-ai-licenses https://github.com/non-ai-licenses/non-ai-licenses
hgs3 2y ago
> Well you can, but then by definition they would no longer be open source. Why?
- sham1 2y ago
  The same reason as to why you couldn't forbid military usage or commercial usage while still remaining Free Software. "The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose" also applies to entities such as the EU. If you forbid it from using the software, you compromise this freedom, and thus aren't Free Software.
- M2Ys4U 2y ago
  Because two key parts of the open source definition[0] are that the license "must not discriminate against any person or group of persons" (criterion 5) and that the license "must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavour" (criterion 6). [0] https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd

by M2Ys4U 2y ago

>Time to exclude EU government use from all your open source projects in the license. You can't. Well you can, but then by definition they would no longer be open source.

hcfman 2y ago

Relatively open is also okay when they killing small players off. Excluding government usage is hardly very closed. Honestly some folks have worked for years on open source software, that government also benefited from, only to find that now the costs involved in paying for someone to certify your software plus the cost of the risk is too high. Politicians need to feel consequences did their decisions.

Findecanor 2y ago

According to the OSI's "Open Source Definition" [1], indeed. It forbids discrimination against any person or group to use the software. Most public source code repositories on the web require every piece of software published on them to be under an OSI-approved license. Not licensing under an OSI-approved license could therefore impede the chances of getting your software distributed and used. I've been thinking on a related issue: perhaps there is a need to formulate a wider but still closed definition that repositories could adopt that would also include some "ethical" source code licenses and "Non-AI licenses" [2]. [1] https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd [2] https://github.com/non-ai-licenses/non-ai-licenses https://github.com/non-ai-licenses/non-ai-licenses

hgs3 2y ago

> Well you can, but then by definition they would no longer be open source. Why?

sham1 2y ago
The same reason as to why you couldn't forbid military usage or commercial usage while still remaining Free Software. "The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose" also applies to entities such as the EU. If you forbid it from using the software, you compromise this freedom, and thus aren't Free Software.
M2Ys4U 2y ago
Because two key parts of the open source definition[0] are that the license "must not discriminate against any person or group of persons" (criterion 5) and that the license "must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavour" (criterion 6). [0] https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd