I don't get it. This is full of some hard to define and enforce restrictions. Who benefits from it? Who wouldn't be immediately turned away from such license? I mean, let's be all good to one another, but this seems misguided.
I get and can appreciate the spirit of this but it’s both misdirected and unenforceable. Misdirected because licenses should dictate use of the product but this license wants to dictate behavior of the licensee, which in turn is obviously unenforceable. I too would rather that unethical people not use my software but there’s really no ethical way to do that through licensing.
This license is not OSD-compliant. The blockers are its use- and user-based restrictions.
Where it collides with the Open Source Definition (OSD)
1. Discrimination against persons or groups (OSD §5).
The license voids permission based on who the user is or with whom they do business. Examples: barring government agencies, multinationals, certain medical institutions, anyone contracting with law enforcement, entities tied to CBP Withhold Release Orders, broadcasters of certain messages, and various others (3.1.11–3.1.13, 3.1.13.1, 3.1.12, 3.1.21, 3.1.22). OSD §5 forbids any license that discriminates against persons or groups.
2. Discrimination against fields of endeavor (OSD §6).
The license conditions rights on how the software is used and the sector in which it is used, e.g., military activities, law-enforcement contracting, fossil-fuel or mineral extraction, certain medical practices, and other sectoral prohibitions (3.1.11–3.1.20). OSD §6 requires allowing use “in a specific field of endeavor,” including commercial use. OSI also flags “non-commercial and ethical clauses” as a common reason for rejection under §6.
3. “You must behave lawfully/ethically” conditions embedded in the license.
Several clauses condition permission on compliance with external legal or policy regimes (e.g., 3.1.20 environmental laws; 3.2.1 adherence to a specific social-auditing program; 4.1–4.2 a new tort-style duty and private right of action). OSI’s annotated OSD explains that while a license may warn about separate legal duties (like export controls), it may not incorporate such restrictions as license conditions. Embedding these behavioral obligations is inconsistent with OSD.
4. General OSI guidance: you cannot restrict “bad” uses or “bad” actors.
OSI’s FAQ states plainly: you may not restrict how people use an open-source program, and you may not exclude “evil people.” The license’s Ethical Standards section does both.
I don't get it. This is full of some hard to define and enforce restrictions. Who benefits from it? Who wouldn't be immediately turned away from such license? I mean, let's be all good to one another, but this seems misguided.
I get and can appreciate the spirit of this but it’s both misdirected and unenforceable. Misdirected because licenses should dictate use of the product but this license wants to dictate behavior of the licensee, which in turn is obviously unenforceable. I too would rather that unethical people not use my software but there’s really no ethical way to do that through licensing.
This license is not OSD-compliant. The blockers are its use- and user-based restrictions.
Where it collides with the Open Source Definition (OSD)
1. Discrimination against persons or groups (OSD §5). The license voids permission based on who the user is or with whom they do business. Examples: barring government agencies, multinationals, certain medical institutions, anyone contracting with law enforcement, entities tied to CBP Withhold Release Orders, broadcasters of certain messages, and various others (3.1.11–3.1.13, 3.1.13.1, 3.1.12, 3.1.21, 3.1.22). OSD §5 forbids any license that discriminates against persons or groups.
2. Discrimination against fields of endeavor (OSD §6). The license conditions rights on how the software is used and the sector in which it is used, e.g., military activities, law-enforcement contracting, fossil-fuel or mineral extraction, certain medical practices, and other sectoral prohibitions (3.1.11–3.1.20). OSD §6 requires allowing use “in a specific field of endeavor,” including commercial use. OSI also flags “non-commercial and ethical clauses” as a common reason for rejection under §6.
3. “You must behave lawfully/ethically” conditions embedded in the license. Several clauses condition permission on compliance with external legal or policy regimes (e.g., 3.1.20 environmental laws; 3.2.1 adherence to a specific social-auditing program; 4.1–4.2 a new tort-style duty and private right of action). OSI’s annotated OSD explains that while a license may warn about separate legal duties (like export controls), it may not incorporate such restrictions as license conditions. Embedding these behavioral obligations is inconsistent with OSD.
4. General OSI guidance: you cannot restrict “bad” uses or “bad” actors. OSI’s FAQ states plainly: you may not restrict how people use an open-source program, and you may not exclude “evil people.” The license’s Ethical Standards section does both.
Politics is what destroyed the GNU movement.
If you don't want certain people using your software, vet them first and only allow certain people to use it.
Stop with this nonsense.
GNU was an inherently polical project from day 1.