Video Coding for Machines: The Need for Compression (2024) (interdigital.com)

Hi HN! I have friends in a country that has an ascendant religious-regressive party that threatens to strip away their rights, if not their freedom altogether. They feel like they’re at the end of their rope. There is no practical way for them to resist electorally anymore, but they’d like to throw as big a wrench in the works as they are able with the limited power that they have. I realize this no longer qualifies as open source or free software; but is there a license in use today that has political stipulations, e.g. financial supporters of X are prohibited from using this software? Thanks.

Similar past (unsuccessful) discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13250450

By the way, I do not wish to turn this question into a political flame war. I also don’t think it’s unprecedented: some of the more popular licenses in use today are specifically intended as political wedges (GPL). And see also the JSON “use for good, not for evil” license.

On a more personal note, I’d like to use a similar license that prohibits military or military-adjacent use.

Comments (10)

pavel_lishin · 2h ago

> an ascendant religious-regressive party that threatens to strip away their rights, if not their freedom altogether.

Wouldn't this party also control the courts? How would you enforce such a license, in an environment like that?

tastyface · 2h ago

I can’t speak for my friends but I see value in using a license as a statement even if it’s not immediately enforceable.

Perhaps litigation can come many years down the line, if and when the political winds change.

bigyabai · 2h ago

One must imagine that a future, liberal court that empathizes with your case wouldn't accept a discriminatory license like that as legally-binding in the first place. It's intent on stripping away rights that you're not qualified to take away, ones that in certain places are protected as civil rights.

Frankly, it's a snipe chase trying to snare someone with discriminatory software licenses no matter who is in charge. Even the GPL doesn't totally succeed at deterring freeloaders, any sort of source-available license will inherently let your perceived boogeyman-of-choice win.

tastyface · 2h ago

Still, looking at the bigger picture, it feels entirely sensible to make a statement that your code shall not be used by people who hate you and want to destroy your way of life, even if it’s not *necessarily* legally enforceable.

bigyabai · 1h ago

Sensible? Sure, to a point. I'm queer, I write GPL software, I can't stop my software from being used by homophobes. But it doesn't cost me any sleep at the end of the night, even in a political wasteland like America.

I'm willing to swallow the opportunity cost of "bad guys" using my software because the good outweighs it. I'm filling a need that might otherwise be occupied by a libertarian nutjob, fascist revolutionary or neocon bootlicker. And I sit there merging PRs with a smile because that's the image I want the world to remember my contributions by.

codingdave · 2h ago

You can put whatever you want in a license. You don't have to use the boilerplate licenses. Take one you like, tack on your additional requirements at the end, and you're all good.

Enforcing it would be a challenge.

tastyface · 2h ago

Yes, hence I’m curious if there is precedent. A license in use by N people has more strength than one in use by a single person.

codingdave · 2h ago

No, it doesn't. A license is just a specific type of contract. The strength is not about the language used, but the ability to take it through a legal process to enforce it. You would need to identify who has broken it, file a suit in court against them, get through all the procedural steps they'll throw at you to get the suit thrown out, then finally actually prove all the elements of a contract at trial.

The precedent you are seeking would help arguments in that last step, but that isn't part that makes enforcement a challenge.

tastyface · 2h ago

Yes, I understand that. It’s still easier to lobby or litigate politically if you’re not out there swinging your sword alone. If it comes time for a lawsuit (assuming a functioning legal system) it’s good to know that there is more than one person in the same situation as you.

tonetegeatinst · 2h ago

To answer your question:

You can tweak a existing license to fit your goals. The issue is if it is not widely adopted then it will be a largely uphill battle to enforce said license, and the longer a legal fight the costlier it becomes.

To answer your question: certain software prohibits use for "military technology" which is one of the vaguest term iv seen. You also have license's that prohibit use in a commercial setting etc.

As for a license that prohibits certain users, that's more complex. The WordPress drama which had a button added blocking a specific group did happen, but a judge blocked that action. You probably need any "click to confirm you are not X or don't support Y at the very beginning of the release and not as an add in later down the road.

The easiest method for blocking certain groups of people would be a web developer banning any country IP that supports GDPR, and includes in the terms of service that you will not use the software if you fall into XYZ category.