Hi all,

Before write what I am about to write, I would like to be clear that this is a very controversial topic and, for the eyes of many of you, this will be even silly.

I also know that open source means “open for everyone”, and any conditional to that automatically makes a piece of software non-open source.

I really feel pissed off to see such effort for brilliant people from open source community being used for terrible things. So I started to nurture the idea of a license that would forbid the usage of a project by totalitarian governments, including its department and contractors, military forces of any country, certain entities like radical political parties, etc. Basically limiting the usage of those projects to any activity promoting human suffering.

Do you guys think that this is utopic? Does it really hurt the essence of open source? Do you think in the same way about this, and if yes, how do you cope with that?

  • LandedGentry@lemmy.zipEnglish
    4·
    1 day ago

    I keep seeing the second point but to me it’s like saying “why ban drunk driving when people drive drunk anyway?“

    There have to be enforcement mechanisms of course. But this license doesn’t exist, so we can’t go “there’s no way to enforce it” when we’re so far the theoretical that there wouldn’t be any reason for that system to exist yet.

    We have all kinds of other licenses that people disrespect, yet we have them and try to enforce them where we can. I don’t seewhy this would be any different, even if it’s a very difficult challenge.

    • comfy@lemmy.ml
      6·
      22 hours ago

      We have all kinds of other licenses that people disrespect, yet we have them and try to enforce them where we can. I don’t seewhy this would be any different, even if it’s a very difficult challenge.

      Laws mean nothing as ideals, like you said, they need enforcement. Unless we engage in vigilante action, we rely on existing law enforcement systems, which do have biases and vested interests and therefore an incentive to ignore many of these criteria. Drunk driving is a case where most governments can look at it and see the obvious benefit to society and its rule, and will bother to at least try to enforce it. And LEA have resources that enable them to enforce that. This kind of license, on the other hand, doesn’t have that same motivation nor capability. Who’s going to stop a military using it? Their own government? Another government?

      It’s completely utopian.

          • LandedGentry@lemmy.zipEnglish
            22·
            21 hours ago

            Well apparently none of these licenses are enforceable so what’s the point of having them? Isn’t that your argument?

            • comfy@lemmy.ml
              6·
              21 hours ago

              No, that’s not my argument. Plenty of those licenses are enforceable and sometimes enforced - even if they’re not enforced perfectly.

              My argument is that OP’s license is mostly targeting situations which, I believe, are unenforceable. I know this following example is ridiculous, but it’s a bit like saying “we should ban drunk driving in other countries”. Drunk driving laws are useful, they’re enforceable even if not perfect, but there’s no point in trying to enforce them in other countries who won’t respect our laws.