On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 7:22 PM Gil Yehuda via License-discuss < [email protected]> wrote:
> I think part of the issue here is that in the face of real human issues, > this seems like a misuse of energy. Licenses manage the use of copyright > rights. We fight genocide with laws, with armies, maybe a good protest or > two? > I've participated in those protests and discussed those laws with policy makers, but the part of my personal activism that I believe is the most effective does relate to copyright and related government granted exclusivity. I spent much of my life trying to make fellow software authors transparent and accountable for the policies that their software and licenses inflicted upon society. This will do far more to protect against geonocide committed with the use of technology than those who work against this ethical goal and try to convince authors that being for or against geonocide is something that should be allowed to be encoded in software or softare license agreements. While the discussion of geonocide may have been contrived, it it still useful to illustrate the problem. I believe that not only is the descrimination that the "ethical" source movement not compatable with the open source development methodology and the variety of communities it is compatable with, I also believe it is counterproductive to the stated goal of reducing the threat of geonocide.
_______________________________________________ The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address. License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
