6 ms·
I don't know the specifics, but I'm fairly sure that would make the software not open source/free software as recognised by the OSI/FSF.
by inops 6y ago
I don't know the specifics, but I'm fairly sure that would make the software not open source/free software as recognised by the OSI/FSF.
- rrobukef 6y agoSurely there exists better terms than an explicit blacklist. I see this as a social weakness in GPL and other open source. GPL wanted to restrict people from profiting without contributing back. Now they profit and attack other projects. What about this: GPL is supported by the FSF. Add a term which allows license use as long as no other projects explicitly supported by the FSF are attacked. (For some definition of attacked, supported,...) Everything remains open, yet the FSF/OSI gets ways to fight back against egregorious takedowns. Even just terms revoking the youtube-dl license the RIAA has (because you can bet one of them has used it), would be a step forward.