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

[–] Coding4Fun@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Amnesty International is a good start point to evaluate if a government is violent, authoritarian or perpetrating crimes against human rights.

You don't deal with extremists. Dialog only works with who is willing to dialog.

Radicals maybe not wrong about their claimings but are wrong about heir methods.

I replied another comment about enforcing the licenses is not the only thing to consider. Secondary effects like making impossible to sell product to other countries that do respect the license, make it difficult to distribut the software to de "sanctioned" countries and even stop to offer support are some consequences that the community can impose.

[–] JustJack23@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 week ago

I would love to live in a world where you can afford to just not deal with extremists.