[africajam]

I did not know about the open source definition. Is that just a guide line or does it carry some weight?

Also, is it discrimination if I give users a choice? You can use my software whoever you are, you just have to disagree with racism.

[current_call]

I did not know about the open source definition. Is that just a guide line or does it carry some weight?

It carries the weight of the names of the people who support it. Take a look at who is involved in it. Ian Murdock, founder of Debian, is a co-founder for the OSI.

Also, is it discrimination if I give users a choice? You can use my software whoever you are, you just have to disagree with racism.

Rephrasing it doesn't change anything.

[gus_massa]

It doesn't carry any weight, it's just a label. It's like the difference between open source and free software. They are just definitions made by someone. You can write any license you want (but get a lawyer).

The concrete problems is that this license with the no-Trump-supporters clause will not be compatible with most of the license that most people think when someone talk as a open source or free software. So for most people this will not be open source or free software.

(I'm not a lawyer, so please get someone to review my opinions.)

* You can't copy code from GPL/LGPL licensed software to your project, and someone else can't copy code from your project to a GPL/LGPL project.

This is important if you are planning to copy any code from a GPL/LGPL library.

* You can copy code from MIT/BSD licensed software to your project, but someone else can't copy code from your project to a MIT/BSD project.

Hey, you can even copy code from a MIT/BSD to a project that has a license that allow to use it only for evil purposes, like killing kitties.

IANAL.