It wouldn't be a free software licence by the FSF definition (rule zero). Of interest the FSF rejects the original JSON licence because it contains the clause “The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.” Since Mastodon uses AGPL, it wouldn't be compatible.

[–] trevor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 week ago (5 children)

This is why I hope to see rule zero get shit-canned. It's a naive vestige from a time long before we hit late-stage capitalism. Corporate interests have slithered their way into every facet of our lives and we should be working to make software that we write hostile to their practices as much as we can.

If that means that the organizations that have a stranglehold on Open Source™️ don't like it, so be it. We can follow in the spirit of open source without the naivety or captured interests of organizations that define the arbitrary terms by which we categorize software licenses.

[–] carotte@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 week ago (3 children)

this reminds me of the Hippocratic License, which comes with a bunch of modules restricting the use of software based on ethical considerations (for example, there’s a module forbidding the use by police, and another one forbidding the use by any institution on the BDS list)

i think the FSF, in their eternal and unchallengeable wisdom (/s), also declared that it wasn’t foss

[–] xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 week ago

I mean, they're right that it's not FOSS - the F is free as in available to anybody who may wish to use it, which is incompatible with defining who is allowed

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (5 replies)