A set of licenses, based on the GPL, with additional clauses to prevent the use of the software for nefarious purposes.
EDIT: After some issues raised, I am rebasing the license on the Apache License 2.0 and taking more care in keeping it open.
EDIT 2: I’ve rebased it. I plan to submit it to OSI as soon as my law student friend has a look at it.
One of the Four Essential Freedoms includes the freedom to run the program for any purpose, even nefarious purposes, unfortunately. This license is well-intentioned, but isn’t a free software license.
I said in the comment that it’s not free. It’s still open, though, AFAIK.
It’s neither free software (as defined by the Free Software Foundation) or open source (as defined by the Open Source Initiative).
I know it’s not free, but are you sure about that last one?
The Open Source Definition from the OSI has the clause:
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
And most people (that actually care about such things) would insist that “open source” must meet the criteria of the OSD to actually be open source.
But does the license do that? It’s not discriminating against groups, it’s discriminating against actions.
a. You may not use this software, or any derivative works based on it, for any activities that promote or incite violence, hate, discrimination, or harm towards individuals or groups based on race, religion, gender, nationality, or any other characteristic. b. You may not use this software, or any derivative works based on it, for any activities that violate international human rights laws, including but not limited to activities that may lead to genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity.Yes, even if the group is racist bigots, warlords, or plain malicious idiots, those are still covered under “any group”. And I would argue that that is a good thing. Not that these groups exist, but that there are no exceptions one might use to create trouble for users.
Seeing how the nouveau-right loves playing their victim card, that will just be gasoline for their hate-engine.
Then maybe this clause is more appropriate:
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
But it does restrict making use of the program in specific fields of endeavor. That’s the entire point of the license. I would e.g. not be able to use it in a business that sells hate speech literature.
Sounds kinda better, tbh.
deleted by creator
Since the license restricts who can use the software it isn’t oss
I thought it was still open; just not free/libre?
Exactly. It is still open source, but not libre.
It could be source available, but not open source.
The open source initiative defines what open source means and states it can’t discriminate against any person group or field of endeavor which I read as if it restricts who uses it, it isn’t open source
deleted by creator
The open source initiative defines what open source means and states it can’t discriminate against any person group or field of endeavor which I read as if it restricts who uses it, it isn’t open source
I’m rebasing the license on the Apache License 2.0.
Doesn’t the ASL allow re-licensing derivative works?
Also… do you really think that if I’m into committing war crimes I care about a software license?
- Does it? Fuck!
- Good point. I guess it’s maybe then just the thought that counts.
From the juridical point of view, citing the gpl in your license is terrible (you didn’t specify the version either). The best thing is to actually write everything from the gpl that you want.
Got it. First time I’ve written a license.
Although you have good intentions, writing your own license is probably not a good idea without adequate legal advice/background.
GPL and Artistic both needed a bunch of legal help to get them where they are.
Don’t roll your own cryptography and don’t do the same for software licenses.
Glad to be helpful.
I love the idea! But as other have said it can be argued it would make the software non-FOSS. It’s still a nice license!
Thanks!
You’ll likely get pushback from people who are convinced that free and open software means you have to allow literally everything. Possibly a large overlap with the sort of people who at least claim they’re free speech maximalists
deleted by creator
Already have. Just have a look at some of the other comments.
The problem I see is that its very easy to argue that X is violence or hate or discrimination. We see this in american politics. Trump gets impeached for things like telling a foreign leader he won’t release funds congress allocated to his country unless he does him a personal favor. Then calls come for bidens impeachment because maybe one of his kids did something somewhere. Ones obviously very legitamate while the other is not. Most open source orgs bend over backwards to not litigate. To be effective this would have to be in constant litigation trying to prove things that can be argued to death.
Yeah, I was thinking that. The bad guys probably aren’t exactly known for obeying the law.
Still, I guess it’s the thought that counts. Also, it would be funny for some dictator to be put on trial and have to answer to NATO, the UN, their own country, and then just this 17-year-old hobbyist calling themself Hellfire103.
While it is a nice idea, as it currently stands it is pointless. You need to define each of the nefarious purpose listed or it will fall under individual jurisdictions and judge interpretations.
Also don’t even bother submitting to OSI as it will be rejected based on their OSD.
