3 ms·
It seems that it would be rather trivial to circumvent this: 1. Ask a friend who is not {male,white,hetero} to fork it on github 2. They make a small change
by matteotom 11y ago
It seems that it would be rather trivial to circumvent this:
1. Ask a friend who is not {male,white,hetero} to fork it on github
2. They make a small change
3. They change the license from this to MIT/BSD/GPL/whatever
Regardless of the legal status of the license, it only (ostensibly) has any effect on straight, white males who know only straight, white males.
(Also I find it mildly disapointing that it makes no mention of trans people, as a straight white trans man would also be "excluded" by this license)
- xenophonf 11y agoYou can't change the license terms of code that isn't yours. That's why relicensing efforts similar to those undertaken by VNC a while ago was such a big deal. The VNC people had to contact every contribute and obtain their permission to change the license of a core library to (IIRC) LGPL. Normally, when projects make licensing changes, it is only allowed because they have some kind of legal authorization (e.g., copyright assignments in contributor agreements).
- xenophonf 11y agoOh, I get it. The license terms might allow it. Hm, speaking from my position of great privilege an power, this license seems pretty silly. I mean, what's its point?
- RRRA 11y agoThat said, if it is illegal to discriminate and it's the only clause that's blocking you and the licence is otherwise GPL/BSD like, well... I guess it'll be a short run in court.
- matteotom 11y agoIt states that (for non-white-hetero-males) there is no requirement to keep the license. I was under the impression that re-licensing is not such a big deal when the current license specifically allows it (such as this one does)?
- delinka 11y ago"You are asked as a courtesy to retain this license in any derivatives but you are not required." Pretty much allows it.