Healthy open source communities don’t just form around code, but also around shared values and a vision for how their work can improve the world. The true measure of the success of open source is its impact— how the technologies we develop are leveraged to bring about positive social, cultural, and political change.
Next time someone bothers me to change my license to a permissive one, I might dual license to HL3 (minus the copyleft module) just for a laugh. Have fun complying with HL3-BDS-BOD-ECO-EXTR-FFD-LAW-MEDIA-MIL-MY-SOC-SUP-SV-TAL-USTA-XUAR.
I like this license. I think some people in this comment section do not understand the purpose. An (open source) license is a tool that is used most effectively in determining what kind of entity uses your software. Use an mit or bsd license and everyone will use your software. Use a gpl license and large corporations might use it sometimes, but wont if there are alternatives and most likely wont incorporate it into any of their products.
This license might not be fully enforcable, but it is 100% poison to companies. Using this license(especially with the copyleft module) will almost certainly guarantee that only small projects will ever use it. Sure, it will kneecap your growth and your code will never see any real usage, but for some projects that might just be the best option.
Wait, so you’re saying the effect of this license is essentially the same as GPL, but you still think it’s a good idea to use it? Even though this license is AFAIK incompatible with most copyleft licenses, thus hindering your ability to use software licensed under these terms and restricting the use of your software by open source projects that operate under a different license?
What is the benefit that makes it worth that high a cost?
You should only use this license for projects you essentially want to fail in that way. If you want to ensure something you made does not get used for fuckery(say, for example, a virus you made for fun), you can use it. It’s a very niche license, but that doesn’t make it bad.
The problem here is enforcement.
The term “open source software” was coined specifically to refer to software licensing that recognizes a particular set of freedoms. It is not a generic term for source-available software, and never was.
One of the freedoms of open source is “no discrimination against fields of endeavor.”
Calling the Hippocratic license family “open source” is inaccurate, since its entire goal is to discriminate against certain fields of endeavor.
It’s better described as a sort of source-available license.
It is not a generic term for source-available software, and never was.
The problem with that reasoning is that precedence and origin do not necessarily define language use after it. Language evolves. Society and communities make up new or change definitions.
Misuse of the term is evidence that it’s not universally understood to be one way.
I think it’s mainly because “open source” can be understood as accessible, readable source. And many people seem to intuitively understand it as such. The “free” terminology on the other hand has a more ambiguous meaning between freedom and no cost. And early on, the “freeware” terminology was established as a differentiation to “free software”. “Open source” does not have such an equivalent established differentiation (like “source-available”, which seems to be just not as prevalent, maybe because there have been much fewer products with that alone).
I understand the desire to correct, specifically with the established OSD. But I have to wonder if it will ever bear fruit, given these circumstances. And in consequence, whether it’s even worth to point out.
The OSI is a US non-profit, their definition is just one opinion in the market place of ideas. If enough people think open source should mean something different the meaning of the term will change.
You’re quoting the source, but aren’t differentiating between open source and free?
C’mon, person. That was a lousy attempt at sounding smart.
Open source doesn’t just mean access to the source code.
Literally the first sentence on the linked page.
That’s cool, I guess, who’s gonna enforce it tho
Congratulations!
As the millionth person to have said this this month, you have been chosen as the lucky winner who gets to enforce it.Do keep your inbox clean for possible enforcement requests from OSS project owners, maintainers and developers.
Oh lmao
The first paragraphs of that are good points. The rest is just Stallman going on a political rant attacking strawman arguments.
There would be music programs allowed only for rap music, and others allowed only for classical music.
I went through and built a license, then read through it.
I don’t think most of the things contained would be legally enforceable. We barely even have traditional open licensing that works, much less one that tries to enforce an ethical framework. Instead of this, we should work toward wide-reaching law that protects people’s rights, something that has teeth. Asking people to please not enslave someone with your library will never work, they will do it anyway or just not use your library, as they already do with copyleft licenses.
… or use them anyway because if they actually don’t care for human rights, will they really care for licenses or licensing law in other countries?
Even then I think establishing intent is worth something.
And it may be different for some of the “lesser evil” modules of the license.
they will do it anyway or just not use your library
I think that’s still worth something. Not being a part of it, even indirectly is worth something. Not enabling them.
Well at least someone can count to 3.
I knew I couldn’t be the only one thinking of another HL3 when I saw the image :)
I get where this is coming from, and it’s good to move away from the libertarian fantasy that technology is neutral. But in practice, it is very hard to actually use.
For example, you can’t use any GPL code that you may want to include, as that forces your project to also become GPL. And anyone using your code would also have to walk on eggshells for licensing, and they would probably just avoid it in the first place.
It might be useful to some very specific end products, but this will likely not see a lot of adoption.
Yeah, no. I’m sticking with licenses that come without any political BS thrown right into my face. I may be left. But I’m not left enough for this shit. MIT all the way baby!
MIT, also known as “corporations, please make use of my free labour”.
Corporations might hire you for consulting.
And already the purists are going “if I may interject for a moment” or screaming “reeeee”, as was expected. It’s like they can’t comprehend that the world has changed and that text written 25 years ago doesn’t stay correct, applicable, or right forever.
The pearl clutching gasp of “but this is against scripture” truly never gets old.
I sent your comment (with the licence) to all AI companies, that I know of and they will use it for training data.
Just to illustrate how wrong you are. Might set up a bot later.
Please don’t stalk/harass our users, it can and will lead to a site wide ban if reported.
Ban data collection agencies, cause they stalk/harass all users.
