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?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Andrzej3K@hexbear.net 6 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Who would enforce it

[–] mukt@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

When I was younger, I once imagined a universal court which would be above all supreme courts, but without any government backing or any force to enforce.

The sole criteria it would have is that the case before it has been studied by supreme court of any nation, and ruled in violation the principle this court observes. This court would then study the case and then rule punishment to the accused AND penalty to the erring judge of the supreme court. The enforcement of its will shall happen in the good old American way of bounties and bounty hunting.

It was quite detailed, but the relevant crux here is that enforcing justice doesn't need dedicated manpower or government backing.

However, a specified court/judiciary is definitely required for a legal recognition.

[–] Andrzej3K@hexbear.net 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You're describing a state

[–] mukt@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago

No. I am describing a global system that goes beyond state.

[+] LandedGentry@lemmy.zip -1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

[deleted]

[–] comfy@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I don't think it's useful to directly compare the GPL. It's often disrespected, yes, but it's also often enforceable. If you violate the GPL in a for-profit product, you might be someone the courts have jurisdiction over and the license is enforceable. It is sometimes enforceable and therefore useful. In OP's proposal, the only target of it I see as viable is the "radical parties". All those other targets are pretty out-of-reach.

As a side point, GPL, along with MIT, CC0, WTFPL, etc., would still be somewhat useful regardless because they forfeit rights. I can modify and republish the software publicly because I'm confident I can't legally be sued for it.

[–] NKBTN@feddit.uk 1 points 1 week ago

It's been tried before, usually as a joke. Kids magazines that say "not for sale to adults". Gaming mods that make you pledge your first born to the developer. To work, the laws of the country the user is in will apply, and will have to be enforced.