I actually love performative licensing. Notable examples are the "Stallman License" [1] and the "Pinkest Pink: Available to Everyone except Anish Kapoor" [2]
> Because the Schrödinger License r0 was released without the exception added in r2, everything in the light cone of commit https://github.com/benlk/misc-licenses/commit/0bbee5aff743e5... is subject to r0 of the Schrödinger License. If you are not sure whether you are covered by r0 of this license: calculate the time distance from 2:15 a.m. EDT July 29 2013 to the current time, multiply that by the speed of light, and draw a sphere with that radius centered on the position of North America at 2:15 a.m. EDT July 29 2013. If you are within that sphere, you are covered by the license. If you were present on Earth at that time, you are covered by the license.
I'm not saying this person cares about the free software movement, or has any requirement to help it thrive, but if you do, and you license software like this, you're an idiot.
It doesn't stop "bad people" (whomever you think that is) using the software, they just disregard the license.
It does stop "good people" - people who want to comply with your license - from using your software. Because you're not a lawyer, and your license is so sloppily drafted, so loosely written, that your prohibitions could apply to almost anyone; it would take a lot of effort on their part to be sure. Your software can't be included in distros, because they can't enforce your bespoke conditions. Basically, all decent people should avoid your software for their own good.
Honestly, just look at how awful his license is: https://www.sql-workbench.eu/manual/license.html#license-res... - now note that it has not defined what "government" means or "any of its organisations" means or "directly related" means or "download" or "use" means. So let's say I'm a contractor for a third party road crew and I fill in potholes identified by the parish council, am I working for an organisation "directly related" to a "government" on the shitlist? And if I am, I could copy the software easily if given to me on a CD or USB stick (because the surrounding Apache license allows it), but I'm prohibited from "downloading" it. I'm not prohibited from "uploading" it, or having someone "upload" it to me. This guy is just a crank, he's not a lawyer, and he really didn't think this through.
Yes, I agree they can choose who they associate with, although my opinion is that it should not restrict others from using it if they obtain a copy indirectly (because I think that copyright and patents should be abolished).
(The actual license seems to only restrict the government from using it, though.)
I was talking about that with my grandfather and he recalled that no Ford dealer would sell a car to a Black person in the region he grew up in. They could only buy Pontiacs.
There is of course A distinct difference between discrimination based on characteristics you were born with and those you appear to have chosen.
But then, you get the slippery slope of sociopath and schizophrenics who have a genetic tendency towards certain behaviors... Who's to say that MAGAs or Nazis aren't born with a genetic tendency towards that behavior?
I'm not sure putting that notice on the web page has any legal effect. The license itself[0] excludes a list of governments, which is probably a bit more more enforceable.
I'm a little bit sympathetic to the general idea of more restrictive licenses (not on this criteria), but one of the realities is that it's going to exclude more than just the people expressly excluded.
Reasons other people might also want to avoid the software include:
* Its lifecycle might be encumbered by this license (e.g., not included by some distros, and the general open source user base puts its contributions behind something more inclusive or accessible).
* For some purposes, a nonstandard license needs special vetting by lawyers for approval, and this one has what I'd guess are some legal and PR bombs in it.
* The author may be a reasonable and principled person, with their heart in the right place, who's exercised their rights in how they license their creations... But are they reacting from some crisis mode of concern about all the wrongs in the world, and could this mode deteriorate into unwelcome surprises from the much more limited perspective of third-party software users? (Will the project become abandoned? Will someone push out undesirable or even trojan software changes? Will the banned parties list be expanded in some way untenable for you?)
Open Source software is also political, it's just a political position you agree with. (It's a position I also agree with, fwiw.) Let's not pretend that the GPL is free of politics.
One one side creators are welcome to choose whom to offer their software, on the other I wonder how it will stand in regard to "anti discrimination" in various countries.
In any case, just please do not call this Open Source :)
"If you agree with the despicable politics of the following political parties"
That's not limited to belonging to a political party, that seems to indicate agreeing with any of the politics. According to polls, the majority of americans agree with some republican policies, like reducing illegal immigration, and no boys in girl sports. Does that mean most american's cant use this?
Is the Taliban a political party? They are a government, I guess? But a party? I dunno.
FWIW, the list of parties here seems predominantly focused on the US and Europe, with one party listed from Russia. I suspect that omissions from this list are not endorsements, but rather uncommon enough on the global stage to not warrant mentioning. The author doesn't go through and mention the Klan either, but like, the Klan isn't really openly active in the US government.
It would have been more succinct to list the Germans who are allowed to use this product given the current polls:
~25% AfD
~25% CDU/CSU aka "AfD mit Substanz"
CSU
??? Werteunion
??? Die Heimat
??? Die Basis
??? Freie Wähler
??? BündnisDeutschland
~4% Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht
This means more than half the German voting population is not welcome.
It seems that this software is only to be used by those on the left side of the political spectrum but not everyone on the left - Sahra Wagenknecht (BSW) is certainly on the left but she does not pass the mustard. SPD/Linke (the former eastern German communist party for those who don't know their history - the party which was responsible for ordering people to be shot for the 'crime' of wanting to leave the country) and the Grüne ('Greens', just like water melons they are green only on the outside but deep red on the inside) are welcome as are those remaining few FDP (a liberal party) voters. I don't know the other parties - Werteunion, Heimat, Basis, Freie Wähler and Bündnis Deutschland - but since they don't show up in the polls they're not that interesting in this context.
> It seems that this software is only to be used by those on the left side of the political spectrum
Democrats aren't on the left side of the political spectrum, but it appears they can use this software. (Yes, they are called the left in the US, but the mainstream positions of the Democratic party are globally center or center-right.)
But also, I would argue that modern leftist parties tend to be less interested in human rights violations and more interested in taking care of everyone (even if that means taking wealth away from the wealthy, which many would consider violative but probably isn't "contempt for human rights")
I'm as far left as you can be. I would say exactly the same thing -- people should be free to associate with who they want, and vend stuff to who they want.
I've seen this line of argument before, "You wouldn't say this if it was YOUR TEAM" and like, yeah, I would? I have a belief that people should be able to freely associate? Why would it matter if it was left groups or right groups or centrist groups?
You have to break out of this "us vs them" notion of politics, it's deeply unhealthy. Parties don't matter, politicians don't matter, policies matter. Be pro/anti- some policy. Who cares what color team has that policy?
Probably people would complain either way, but my opinion is that neither the left nor right political parties are good, and my opinion is also that the license should not make such restrictions like this whether or not you agree with those political parties. Some other people might believe similar things that I had said.
Some of them actually are left wing/progressive, most obviously Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht. Wagenknecht was actually an MP for The Left, whose politics are what you'd imagine. The CDU/CSU have spent years in coalition with the German left, also. The list appears to be simply any party that either opposes unlimited immigration, or the author suspects might not be fully in support of it, regardless of their other positions or history.
[+] [-] arn3n|9 months ago|reply
[1] https://github.com/benlk/misc-licenses/blob/master/stallman-... [2] https://stuartsemple.com/anish-kapoor-banned-worlds-pinkest-...
[+] [-] dijksterhuis|9 months ago|reply
> # Historical note
> Because the Schrödinger License r0 was released without the exception added in r2, everything in the light cone of commit https://github.com/benlk/misc-licenses/commit/0bbee5aff743e5... is subject to r0 of the Schrödinger License. If you are not sure whether you are covered by r0 of this license: calculate the time distance from 2:15 a.m. EDT July 29 2013 to the current time, multiply that by the speed of light, and draw a sphere with that radius centered on the position of North America at 2:15 a.m. EDT July 29 2013. If you are within that sphere, you are covered by the license. If you were present on Earth at that time, you are covered by the license.
[+] [-] crises-luff-6b|9 months ago|reply
It's been a few decades since I read it, but Free Software, Free Society is pretty clear about its political intent.
[+] [-] hoseja|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] amiga386|9 months ago|reply
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freed...
I'm not saying this person cares about the free software movement, or has any requirement to help it thrive, but if you do, and you license software like this, you're an idiot.
It doesn't stop "bad people" (whomever you think that is) using the software, they just disregard the license.
It does stop "good people" - people who want to comply with your license - from using your software. Because you're not a lawyer, and your license is so sloppily drafted, so loosely written, that your prohibitions could apply to almost anyone; it would take a lot of effort on their part to be sure. Your software can't be included in distros, because they can't enforce your bespoke conditions. Basically, all decent people should avoid your software for their own good.
Honestly, just look at how awful his license is: https://www.sql-workbench.eu/manual/license.html#license-res... - now note that it has not defined what "government" means or "any of its organisations" means or "directly related" means or "download" or "use" means. So let's say I'm a contractor for a third party road crew and I fill in potholes identified by the parish council, am I working for an organisation "directly related" to a "government" on the shitlist? And if I am, I could copy the software easily if given to me on a CD or USB stick (because the surrounding Apache license allows it), but I'm prohibited from "downloading" it. I'm not prohibited from "uploading" it, or having someone "upload" it to me. This guy is just a crank, he's not a lawyer, and he really didn't think this through.
[+] [-] energywut|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] zzo38computer|9 months ago|reply
(The actual license seems to only restrict the government from using it, though.)
[+] [-] readthenotes1|9 months ago|reply
There is of course A distinct difference between discrimination based on characteristics you were born with and those you appear to have chosen.
But then, you get the slippery slope of sociopath and schizophrenics who have a genetic tendency towards certain behaviors... Who's to say that MAGAs or Nazis aren't born with a genetic tendency towards that behavior?
[+] [-] Hyperboreanal|9 months ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Zak|9 months ago|reply
[0] https://www.sql-workbench.eu/manual/license.html
[+] [-] mingus88|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] neilv|9 months ago|reply
Reasons other people might also want to avoid the software include:
* Its lifecycle might be encumbered by this license (e.g., not included by some distros, and the general open source user base puts its contributions behind something more inclusive or accessible).
* For some purposes, a nonstandard license needs special vetting by lawyers for approval, and this one has what I'd guess are some legal and PR bombs in it.
* The author may be a reasonable and principled person, with their heart in the right place, who's exercised their rights in how they license their creations... But are they reacting from some crisis mode of concern about all the wrongs in the world, and could this mode deteriorate into unwelcome surprises from the much more limited perspective of third-party software users? (Will the project become abandoned? Will someone push out undesirable or even trojan software changes? Will the banned parties list be expanded in some way untenable for you?)
[+] [-] smitty1e|9 months ago|reply
This is just the inevitable fallout of our inability to have nice things.
May all find joy in their choices.
[+] [-] throw2727218r|9 months ago|reply
If they stuck to just the names that would have been less annoying, but they had a release where it would automatically start typing a message.
I stopped using it and stopped donating soon afterwards.
[+] [-] energywut|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] neilv|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] 1vuio0pswjnm7|9 months ago|reply
But if these licenses are rarely enforced, then what difference does it make
Busybox is best exception that comes to mind; but enforcement seems to have fizzled out anyway
For this "SQL Workbench" software, how would license enforcement work
1. How does the author of free software detect that a Republican is using it <-- This is what I am most curious about
2. If the author detects a Republican using the software, then what will he do about it; how much is he willing to spend on lawyers
[+] [-] hans_castorp|9 months ago|reply
The author apparently doesn't want his/her software to be used by right-wing fascists.
Which seems to be an understandable point of view in times where democratic values and human rights are treated as "communism" or "radical left"
[+] [-] jarrell_mark|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 months ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] RandomUser4976|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] PeterZaitsev|9 months ago|reply
In any case, just please do not call this Open Source :)
[+] [-] ian-g|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] zzo38computer|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] sea-gold|9 months ago|reply
- https://dbeaver.io/
- https://www.oracle.com/database/sqldeveloper/
- https://www.beekeeperstudio.io/
[+] [-] KevinMS|9 months ago|reply
That's not limited to belonging to a political party, that seems to indicate agreeing with any of the politics. According to polls, the majority of americans agree with some republican policies, like reducing illegal immigration, and no boys in girl sports. Does that mean most american's cant use this?
[+] [-] umeshunni|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] energywut|9 months ago|reply
FWIW, the list of parties here seems predominantly focused on the US and Europe, with one party listed from Russia. I suspect that omissions from this list are not endorsements, but rather uncommon enough on the global stage to not warrant mentioning. The author doesn't go through and mention the Klan either, but like, the Klan isn't really openly active in the US government.
[+] [-] ian-g|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] josephcsible|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 months ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] spacemadness|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] jarbus|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] hagbard_c|9 months ago|reply
It seems that this software is only to be used by those on the left side of the political spectrum but not everyone on the left - Sahra Wagenknecht (BSW) is certainly on the left but she does not pass the mustard. SPD/Linke (the former eastern German communist party for those who don't know their history - the party which was responsible for ordering people to be shot for the 'crime' of wanting to leave the country) and the Grüne ('Greens', just like water melons they are green only on the outside but deep red on the inside) are welcome as are those remaining few FDP (a liberal party) voters. I don't know the other parties - Werteunion, Heimat, Basis, Freie Wähler and Bündnis Deutschland - but since they don't show up in the polls they're not that interesting in this context.
[+] [-] energywut|9 months ago|reply
Democrats aren't on the left side of the political spectrum, but it appears they can use this software. (Yes, they are called the left in the US, but the mainstream positions of the Democratic party are globally center or center-right.)
But also, I would argue that modern leftist parties tend to be less interested in human rights violations and more interested in taking care of everyone (even if that means taking wealth away from the wealthy, which many would consider violative but probably isn't "contempt for human rights")
[+] [-] mattray0295|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] periodjet|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] energywut|9 months ago|reply
I've seen this line of argument before, "You wouldn't say this if it was YOUR TEAM" and like, yeah, I would? I have a belief that people should be able to freely associate? Why would it matter if it was left groups or right groups or centrist groups?
You have to break out of this "us vs them" notion of politics, it's deeply unhealthy. Parties don't matter, politicians don't matter, policies matter. Be pro/anti- some policy. Who cares what color team has that policy?
[+] [-] zzo38computer|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] Apreche|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] mike_hearn|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] bobsmooth|9 months ago|reply