alt Hacker NewsI feel really bad for you.
It might actually be wise [1] to create a new, slightly less permissioned license for open source wherein the open is defined as anything that isn’t in a kill or surveillance chain or, more broadly, for military use…
[1] for the community
Replies
Why do you want the people risking their lives to protect your freedom to have worse artillery? I don't understand this thinking at all. If my country is going to shoot something, I want them to be able to control what actually gets hit. I swear, people take borderline religious stances on things to the point that they no longer make sense.
I doubt this is enforceable. Are you going to sue a government secret program because they used some open source code in a way that violates some weird clause?
You think they're going to read that license and then go oh, sorry, we won't use this because you told us not to?
Ah yes, they're carpet bombing people and indiscriminately killing fighters, adults and children, but they're going to be stopped because... the software they use is two clause GPL.
That wouldn't be open source. OSI includes the clause "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor"[0] for its definition of open source. Famously, the JSON license[1] has a clause "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil," so the Free Software Foundation considers it nonfree.[2]
[0]: https://opensource.org/osd
[1]: https://www.json.org/license.html
[2]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#JSON