zaire arcana@zaire@fedi.absturztau.be
@SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo @cnx@awkward.place they’re free software under the same definition of free software that is violated when you forbid genocidal fascists from using your code
the FSF has no sense of ethics
SuperDicq@SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
@zaire@fedi.absturztau.be @cnx@awkward.place People who commit genocide should be in jail without access to a computer in the first place, they should never touch software.
The FSF doesn't allow these so called "ethical source" licences, not because they think that genocide is good, but because these licenses are extremely dumb and counteracting to the free software movement goals.
All that these licenses do is muddy the legal text with additional clauses that are extremely vague and completely unenforceable through copyright law in the first place.
Copyright law is absolutely the wrong tool for the job here. We have many other systems that are supposed to stop genocide. If these can not even stop genocide do you think a copyright license will make a difference? Of course not.
The only thing than can happen is that a judge will say that the license is invalid, which is obviously bad for free software.
I also highly disagree with the statement "FSF has no sense of ethics". It's just you who clearly misses the point.
Also you should honestly see the irony with your own statement about "free software" when it contains "when you forbid" and "your code".
We don't take ownership of software running on other people's computers and we definitely don't forbid things. That's the opposite of what the free software movement is about.
