1. 6
    1. 1

      its sad to see that this is not an open source license through

      1. 2

        Well it’s not free software as defined by the FSF. But is that a bad thing? Isn’t this kind of cooperative spirit what “open source” should be about in the first place? I mean, if a MITM platform intended for usage by intelligence services is released under GPLv3, does that make it good for anyone?

        There were some debates almost two decades ago in the french-speaking world about free software (logiciel libre) vs freeing software (logiciel libérateur). This also echoes the more recent debates around RFC1984 at the IETF.

    2. 2

      Interesting idea. Although I think closed source anticapitalist software would miss the point. All in all, capitalists were the ones who attempted to private people from the ownership of their applications.

      1. 2

        Sure thing. This license is not about close-sourcing though, it’s about depriving for-profit entities (and the military industrial complex) from using open source software. In that sense, it’s not “free software” (according to GNU).

        I don’t think it’s a good license i would use (it still allows many bad actors to use the software), but i found it interesting so i shared the link ;)