Stallman wrote about this:
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.
People are allowed to choose who they associate with and who they vend stuff to. This seems fine to me?
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?)
Politicizing software has all the appeal of proprietary licensing.
This is just the inevitable fallout of our inability to have nice things.
May all find joy in their choices.
Software developers love to discuss licenses for free software
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
I switched to DBeaver a few years ago after realizing SQL Workbench wasn’t open source
Brilliant! This a huge move in the right direction. I will do the same.
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 :)
It's his software and his choice, but that's going to be difficult to enforce. With that said, there's a lot of other SQL interfaces out there.
"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?
But the Taliban is welcome to use it
Comment prediction: lots of enlightened centrism.
a few years ago, i'd have thought this to be excessive, but now i'm sympathetic to this.
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
??? BĂĽndnisDeutschland
~4% BĂĽndnis Sahra Wagenknecht
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.
I'm 10000% using it now because I am a REPUBLICAN, lol
I wonder how HN would react if the listed political parties were all left-wing / progressive ones.
SQL was developed by Donald D. Chamberlin and Raymond F. Boyce at IBM. Maybe the author of this piece of software should not want to use a language developed by a company which he no doubt considers to be below his moral standards?
It is a good thing that just like this person we all are free to choose which products to use and which to avoid.
As an aside I do wonder why so many former west-Germans ended up so far to the left while their former east-German compatriots - who have suffered for close to half a century under a left-wing regime - went the opposite way. I also notice that many 'educated' former west-Germans consider themselves to be morally superior to those AfD-voting former east-Germans which seems quite incongruous given the political left's insistence on using people's 'lived experience' as a guideline on where the truth lies. Does this 'lived experience' not count if it goes against the desired narrative?
lol
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
I'd like to know what human rights these organizations have contempt for.
More licenses should do the same, this is excellent.
I actually love performative licensing. Notable examples are the "Stallman License" [1] and the "Pinkest Pink: Available to Everyone except Anish Kapoor" [2]
[1] https://github.com/benlk/misc-licenses/blob/master/stallman-... [2] https://stuartsemple.com/anish-kapoor-banned-worlds-pinkest-...