@larsmb The "Linux Foundation" is a group of copyright infringers and worse freedom takers, passing around tips on how to ensure derivative works of Linux remain proprietary despite how it's licensed under the GPLv2-only as well as other software licensed under the GPLv2-or-later or the GPLv3-or-later.

Whether you develop software publicly or privately doesn't really matter - either development model is acceptable, what's not acceptable is distributing proprietary software.

>If, as a software developer or contributor, I can't formally forbid my work to be used for mass murder without being excluded from the currently largest software community, does that not strike you as strange?
Copyright does not give anyone the power to forbid mass murder and therefore any kind of such requirement is legally invalid and trying to apply restrictions beyond what copyright law permits renders a license nonfree.

If people are willing to do mass murder, they won't even think twice about infringing copyright, nor any other law (besides, most mass murders are carried out by governments, who feel that they are above any law).

You really should only include things relevant to a project - but if you really want to show that you're against mass murder, you can add a comment to the README detailing such without rendering the software nonfree (but don't complain when someone decides to remove such non-relevant information).

>Hippocratic License for Open Source Communities
That license is so proprietary and unethical that you can't even read it without running proprietary JavaScript (bonus proprietary points; it seems they want to encourage writing your own special proprietary license).

I found a copy of the old 2.1 version and surprise, surprise, it violates all 4 freedoms; https://spdx.org/licenses/Hippocratic-2.1.html

It's a total dumpster fire and many sections do not appear to be legally valid (protip: imaginary property does not legally exist, there is copyright, patent, trademark and trade secret law etc, all with major differences).

I cannot tell if it even actually gives permission to modify or distribute the software - it mentions modifications and distribution, but only in a past tense, without giving explicit permission to do so and even the past tense stuff appears to have something to do about how you're allowed to write your own software and distribute that under of your terms (how generous).

Thankfully, few people will make the mistake of using proprietary software under that license family.

>Most of our communities have codes of conduct and contributor guidelines already
Proprietary CoC's are unacceptable and I will never agree to one.

Guidelines are acceptable, as those are merely suggestions.

>We have the right to refuse interactions, contributions, patches, reports, sponsorships, or affiliations with individuals or organizations whose values, policies, or practices irreconcilably conflict with ours.
Part of freedom is to be free to choose to accept patches or not.

I don't like nazi's, but I won't refuse a patch from a nazi as long as it's acceptably licensed and good.

Part of freedom is being able to work with x even if others have declared that (almost always incorrectly) that x is a nazi.

>Consider adopting ethical practices that go beyond Free, Libre, and Open Source
"Consider applying proprietary restrictions that go beyond freedom".

>it is not just commercial exploitation which open-washes our communities (and where I believe that the Software Freedom Conservancy comes out ahead in their stance over OSI's pragmatism
The "OSI" was ****solely made to allow for commercial exploitation**** - proprietary software companies do not like hearing that proprietary software is unacceptable, thus the "OSI" was made to silence any of those discussions and focus on only higher quality software, faster (preferably under weak licenses, all the better to make proprietary and to chain people with).

>Technology is not neutral.
I cannot read that paper without running proprietary software (what a surprise), but I know that technology is in fact neutral.

A hammer is neutral.

A fancy calculator is neutral.

Whether a technology is good or bad solely depends on how someone uses it.