Brutkey

cerement
@cerement@social.targaryen.house

@eruwero@ieji.de @bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @tusharhero@mathstodon.xyz

@pluralistic@mamot.fr recently did a column on the divide between “free software” and “open source software”

one of his closing points: out of all the effort put into licenses, some of that needs to be diverted towards creating a workable (and usable) ethical software license that takes into account the world we’re actually living in where corporations treat open source like unpaid interns

https://pluralistic.net/2025/07/14/pole-star/

OS-SCI
@os_sci@mastodon.social

@cerement@social.targaryen.house @eruwero@ieji.de @bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @tusharhero@mathstodon.xyz @pluralistic@mamot.fr it's a good idea to keep discussing on ethics and foss/fosh . I find it very difficult to comprehend that foss software is used in warfare and is killing people. But adding no military usage in a license would violate the four freedoms

eruwero
@eruwero@ieji.de

@os_sci@mastodon.social I guess not all problems can be solved with licenses. Given how major militaries disregard international law, I don't think they care too much about copyright infringement. Especially if they can just keep it "top secret" for a long time.

But it's again an argument for copyleft I think, because at least in principle you can force them to open up the software. And it might be possible to target companies selling military equipment or software.

@cerement@social.targaryen.house @bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @tusharhero@mathstodon.xyz @pluralistic@mamot.fr