Closed licenses are arguably better for certain left projects, particularly self-contained ones. You can use bourgeois legal nonsense to stop corpos from using your work.

I've seen anti-war people write open source code that ended up getting used to help fly war drones.

[–] Faresh@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Closed licenses are arguably better for certain left projects

What about licenses that restrict the software from being used in a certain way? I think I've heard of at least one open-source license that disallows the software from being used in the military industry.

[–] themoonisacheese@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago

I mean yeah that's cool but are you really going to sue Lockheed-Martin? Like realistically if they wanted to they could take your code, say its theirs and what are you gonna do about it?

[–] spauldo@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

A license that has restrictions like that doesn't meet the criteria to call itself "open source."

[–] dubba@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Free/libre software is not the same as open source, but I agree that it is difficult to enforce prohibitions with source available.

[–] spauldo@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

No, I mean that item number 6 of the Open Source Definition specifically states you cannot restrict the use of the software for any particular field or endeavor. That includes use in military applications.

If you have restrictions like that in your license, it's not open source.

[–] raven@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago

Broke: "corporations are people"

Woke: "Militaries are people"

[–] Maoo@hexbear.net -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I like the idea a lot but my understanding is that they're unenforceable. I'd go with one of those if I thought they worked, though.