Closed licenses are arguably better for certain left projects, particularly self-contained ones. You can use bourgeois legal nonsense to stop corpos from using your work.
I've seen anti-war people write open source code that ended up getting used to help fly war drones.
Closed licenses are arguably better for certain left projects
What about licenses that restrict the software from being used in a certain way? I think I've heard of at least one open-source license that disallows the software from being used in the military industry.
You're free to use whatever license you want for software you write.
The term "open source" has an actual definition, just like the term "free software" does. Both definitions say you can't restrict who can use the software or what they can use it for.
No, I mean that item number 6 of the Open Source Definition specifically states you cannot restrict the use of the software for any particular field or endeavor. That includes use in military applications.
If you have restrictions like that in your license, it's not open source.
Could be! I think even having a source available closed license is probably difficult to enforce for the same reason: corporate law is mostly about who has a pile of cash to burn and that's not me lol
Closed licenses are arguably better for certain left projects, particularly self-contained ones. You can use bourgeois legal nonsense to stop corpos from using your work.
I've seen anti-war people write open source code that ended up getting used to help fly war drones.
What about licenses that restrict the software from being used in a certain way? I think I've heard of at least one open-source license that disallows the software from being used in the military industry.
A license that has restrictions like that doesn't meet the criteria to call itself "open source."
deleted by creator
You're free to use whatever license you want for software you write.
The term "open source" has an actual definition, just like the term "free software" does. Both definitions say you can't restrict who can use the software or what they can use it for.
Free/libre software is not the same as open source, but I agree that it is difficult to enforce prohibitions with source available.
No, I mean that item number 6 of the Open Source Definition specifically states you cannot restrict the use of the software for any particular field or endeavor. That includes use in military applications.
If you have restrictions like that in your license, it's not open source.
Broke: "corporations are people"
Woke: "Militaries are people"
deleted by creator
I like the idea a lot but my understanding is that they're unenforceable. I'd go with one of those if I thought they worked, though.
deleted by creator
Could be! I think even having a source available closed license is probably difficult to enforce for the same reason: corporate law is mostly about who has a pile of cash to burn and that's not me lol