One must imagine that a future, liberal court that empathizes with your case wouldn't accept a discriminatory license like that as legally-binding in the first place. It's intent on stripping away rights that you're not qualified to take away, ones that in certain places are protected as civil rights.
Frankly, it's a snipe chase trying to snare someone with discriminatory software licenses no matter who is in charge. Even the GPL doesn't totally succeed at deterring freeloaders, any sort of source-available license will inherently let your perceived boogeyman-of-choice win.
Still, looking at the bigger picture, it feels entirely sensible to make a statement that your code shall not be used by people who hate you and want to destroy your way of life, even if it’s not *necessarily* legally enforceable.
Sensible? Sure, to a point. I'm queer, I write GPL software, I can't stop my software from being used by homophobes. But it doesn't cost me any sleep at the end of the night, even in a political wasteland like America.
I'm willing to swallow the opportunity cost of "bad guys" using my software because the good outweighs it. I'm filling a need that might otherwise be occupied by a libertarian nutjob, fascist revolutionary or neocon bootlicker. And I sit there merging PRs with a smile because that's the image I want the world to remember my contributions by.
You can put whatever you want in a license. You don't have to use the boilerplate licenses. Take one you like, tack on your additional requirements at the end, and you're all good.
No, it doesn't. A license is just a specific type of contract. The strength is not about the language used, but the ability to take it through a legal process to enforce it. You would need to identify who has broken it, file a suit in court against them, get through all the procedural steps they'll throw at you to get the suit thrown out, then finally actually prove all the elements of a contract at trial.
The precedent you are seeking would help arguments in that last step, but that isn't part that makes enforcement a challenge.
Yes, I understand that. It’s still easier to lobby or litigate politically if you’re not out there swinging your sword alone. If it comes time for a lawsuit (assuming a functioning legal system) it’s good to know that there is more than one person in the same situation as you.
You can tweak a existing license to fit your goals. The issue is if it is not widely adopted then it will be a largely uphill battle to enforce said license, and the longer a legal fight the costlier it becomes.
To answer your question: certain software prohibits use for "military technology" which is one of the vaguest term iv seen. You also have license's that prohibit use in a commercial setting etc.
As for a license that prohibits certain users, that's more complex. The WordPress drama which had a button added blocking a specific group did happen, but a judge blocked that action. You probably need any "click to confirm you are not X or don't support Y at the very beginning of the release and not as an add in later down the road.
The easiest method for blocking certain groups of people would be a web developer banning any country IP that supports GDPR, and includes in the terms of service that you will not use the software if you fall into XYZ category.
> an ascendant religious-regressive party that threatens to strip away their rights, if not their freedom altogether.
Wouldn't this party also control the courts? How would you enforce such a license, in an environment like that?
I can’t speak for my friends but I see value in using a license as a statement even if it’s not immediately enforceable.
Perhaps litigation can come many years down the line, if and when the political winds change.
One must imagine that a future, liberal court that empathizes with your case wouldn't accept a discriminatory license like that as legally-binding in the first place. It's intent on stripping away rights that you're not qualified to take away, ones that in certain places are protected as civil rights.
Frankly, it's a snipe chase trying to snare someone with discriminatory software licenses no matter who is in charge. Even the GPL doesn't totally succeed at deterring freeloaders, any sort of source-available license will inherently let your perceived boogeyman-of-choice win.
Still, looking at the bigger picture, it feels entirely sensible to make a statement that your code shall not be used by people who hate you and want to destroy your way of life, even if it’s not *necessarily* legally enforceable.
Sensible? Sure, to a point. I'm queer, I write GPL software, I can't stop my software from being used by homophobes. But it doesn't cost me any sleep at the end of the night, even in a political wasteland like America.
I'm willing to swallow the opportunity cost of "bad guys" using my software because the good outweighs it. I'm filling a need that might otherwise be occupied by a libertarian nutjob, fascist revolutionary or neocon bootlicker. And I sit there merging PRs with a smile because that's the image I want the world to remember my contributions by.
You can put whatever you want in a license. You don't have to use the boilerplate licenses. Take one you like, tack on your additional requirements at the end, and you're all good.
Enforcing it would be a challenge.
Yes, hence I’m curious if there is precedent. A license in use by N people has more strength than one in use by a single person.
No, it doesn't. A license is just a specific type of contract. The strength is not about the language used, but the ability to take it through a legal process to enforce it. You would need to identify who has broken it, file a suit in court against them, get through all the procedural steps they'll throw at you to get the suit thrown out, then finally actually prove all the elements of a contract at trial.
The precedent you are seeking would help arguments in that last step, but that isn't part that makes enforcement a challenge.
Yes, I understand that. It’s still easier to lobby or litigate politically if you’re not out there swinging your sword alone. If it comes time for a lawsuit (assuming a functioning legal system) it’s good to know that there is more than one person in the same situation as you.
To answer your question:
You can tweak a existing license to fit your goals. The issue is if it is not widely adopted then it will be a largely uphill battle to enforce said license, and the longer a legal fight the costlier it becomes.
To answer your question: certain software prohibits use for "military technology" which is one of the vaguest term iv seen. You also have license's that prohibit use in a commercial setting etc.
As for a license that prohibits certain users, that's more complex. The WordPress drama which had a button added blocking a specific group did happen, but a judge blocked that action. You probably need any "click to confirm you are not X or don't support Y at the very beginning of the release and not as an add in later down the road.
The easiest method for blocking certain groups of people would be a web developer banning any country IP that supports GDPR, and includes in the terms of service that you will not use the software if you fall into XYZ category.