I thought that Free and Open Source Software could not have these kinds of restrictions. Is this the future of a new license?
Open Source (with some exceptions)
Austin Williams
Other urls found in this thread:
github.com
mobile.twitter.com
twitter.com
Tyler Morales
From a strictly libre point of view, such changes do not harm users (the whole point of FOSS). Individuals are still free to use, modify, and distribute the software, even those that work at these corporations. All that this clause ensures is that the software will not be used officially by the corporations listed.
Mason Roberts
Source: github.com
Dev’s Twitter: mobile.twitter.com
Very interested to see the implications and discussion of this. It’s incredible to see developers attempting to fight political enemies by bringing politics into software licensing.
Although it seems the ones who licensed it this way were not on the project of the start, they have taken ownership in a way that much of the software written by the last generations will need in the near future.
Just thought you guys would like this.
Ethan Fisher
that's the fag license from yesterday's thread.
nice try larping faggot.
Jack Evans
>bringing politics into software licensing
Licensing is always political.
David Barnes
I would argue that it is on the “legal” side of the fence.
Jacob Fisher
Add jews to the list
Mason Miller
What license are we talking about right now, GGPL, Revised BSD License..?
Ryan Thomas
That would be discriminating on racial grounds, the United States law would never enforce that. I for one would stage a “software sit-in” where the oppressed people effected by a license very visibly use the software until removed.
Connor Hall
Modified MIT license. You can find the details in the repo