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."

[–] uralsolo@hexbear.net 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If the designation of "open source" is such that any open source project can be used by massive corporations or militaries or anything else like that, then the designation "open source" isn't worth protecting and we need a new one that allows for free use by enthusiasts and other free projects but that is blocked or paywalled from profit-seeking ones.

[–] spauldo@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago

You're free to use whatever license you want for software you write.

The term "open source" has an actual definition, just like the term "free software" does. Both definitions say you can't restrict who can use the software or what they can use it for.

[–] 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.

[–] uralsolo@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

AFAIK it's just something that hasn't been tested, but that goes for basically all digital "shrinkwrap contracts" from your iTunes EULA to the license on your github repo. Good luck being the first person to test it if you're not a major corporation, though.

[–] Maoo@hexbear.net -3 points 1 year ago

Could be! I think even having a source available closed license is probably difficult to enforce for the same reason: corporate law is mostly about who has a pile of cash to burn and that's not me lol