Software that is non-free because the license it is distributed under requires users to make the same political decisions as the software author in order to use it is just as bad, if not worse, than traditional closed-source unfree software.
I don’t think this. I’m asserting that this kind of license is bad and that people who care about software freedom should work against such licenses in exactly the same way that they work against ordinary proprietary closed-source software licenses, because they are harmful to the end user in the same way as ordinary proprietary closed-source software licenses. This is fundamentally a political assertion.
I like this in principle – software licencing as a progressive political tool – but the usual criticisms of small, relatively unknown licences apply. I.e., it’s unlikely that this has had any legal testing so who really knows what it might mean in court; the nuance of it is likely to prolong any litigation that involves it (and therefore make it more expensive); it probably wouldn’t survive the legal attrition of getting approved for use in a large organisation.
Something like this could be incorporated into mostly everything, couldn’t it? But then again it could have a negative effect, for example if numpy were to use such a license, it could halt further development because some of the users/companies that use it also contribute with bugfixes and more features. If they cannot use it, they would most likely not contribute any code.
And also, isn’t this a bit too much:
aid in the exploration …
I know geologists need to look for fossil fuels in order to see how the bedrock is being formed and kept together etc. So that might be something to look into, nevertheless this looks interesting! :)
Software that is non-free because the license it is distributed under requires users to make the same political decisions as the software author in order to use it is just as bad, if not worse, than traditional closed-source unfree software.
If you think politics should be kept out of software licencing, I have some bad news for you about the free software movement.
I don’t think this. I’m asserting that this kind of license is bad and that people who care about software freedom should work against such licenses in exactly the same way that they work against ordinary proprietary closed-source software licenses, because they are harmful to the end user in the same way as ordinary proprietary closed-source software licenses. This is fundamentally a political assertion.
You could make the same “harm to the end user” argument about copyleft though, for instance.
I like this in principle – software licencing as a progressive political tool – but the usual criticisms of small, relatively unknown licences apply. I.e., it’s unlikely that this has had any legal testing so who really knows what it might mean in court; the nuance of it is likely to prolong any litigation that involves it (and therefore make it more expensive); it probably wouldn’t survive the legal attrition of getting approved for use in a large organisation.
So, literally any company on the planet?
The code will never run.
Something like this could be incorporated into mostly everything, couldn’t it? But then again it could have a negative effect, for example if numpy were to use such a license, it could halt further development because some of the users/companies that use it also contribute with bugfixes and more features. If they cannot use it, they would most likely not contribute any code.
And also, isn’t this a bit too much:
I know geologists need to look for fossil fuels in order to see how the bedrock is being formed and kept together etc. So that might be something to look into, nevertheless this looks interesting! :)