96
I'm giving up — on open source - Blog
(nutjs.dev)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2024
96 points (76.4% liked)
Open Source
30349 readers
2660 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
- !libre_culture@lemmy.ml
- !libre_software@lemmy.ml
- !libre_hardware@lemmy.ml
- !linux@lemmy.ml
- !technology@lemmy.ml
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I wonder, is it possible to create a license that would allow you to simply ban people who are being a dick about something from using it? Sure, it may turn away some people, since there's always a risk of abuse, but it's your work and as far as I know, you are the one who sets the terms.
If I'm not mistaken, most of the FOSS licenses (or maybe even laws?) guarantee you that you would be able to use the software even if the project later decides to change to proprietary license. But I assume you can simply specify in a licence "Everyone can use it, expect X.Y.Z".
Would that be legal? Sure, it would probably be pretty hard to enforce, but in some cases it could make for a pretty satisfactory (and petty, of course) C&D letters, for people that really deserve it. You insult the devs of a software your company depends on, demanding something while being a dick about it? Well, fuck you, no library for you and your company.
"This is completle free to use, download, modify, redistribute, etc by anyone except Dave. Fuck Dave."
I don't know how legal that'd be, but i wouldn't even complain.
@jnk @Mikina
Legal yes. But sadly not FOSS. The Llama models from Meta are basically "free to use by anyone except our competitors"
There is a paint pigment that is available for sale but you have to confirm that you are not Anish Kapoor (another artist) and that you will let Kapoor get his hands on the pigment.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/artist-only-person-banned-using-worlds-pinkest-pink-180961464/
You can certainly make such a license but I think it will hinder adoption. Just do a paid license at that point and refuse to renew if someone makes you mad enough.
But a paid licence will affect users that are all right abd for whom you're doing it.
I understand that using something with a risk of loosong access because you've upset the developer is something that will turn away a lot of people, but then again, I'd say that "don't be a dick" is a pretty reasonable requirement. The only issue I see that it's a pretty vague definiton, but maybe just limiting it to profanities and insult towards the contributors is something more concrete, which would be easy to fulfill and also enforce.