[cies]

I don't think it is possible. And it's someone's right (freeze peach) to make a mark on this.

I've love some of the texts books that has small hints of the authors political attitudes hidden in the examples. It gives character to the work.

Especially in open source I believe this is important to have this freedom. Companies usually do not openly express political prefs (unless it's widely accepted, as in gay-pride rainbows when the fight for equality is largely won). Many opensource projects are not run by corps, but by individuals: and that individual decide to tag a message to the product he/she delivers.

This has always been done, it's form of activism, and I believe it is a good thing. Otherwise we would only encounter political statements in the places we expect it (media, which is largely paid for) and much of us have already chosen to ignore.

My main point: please do not be dismissive of politics as that only helps the lobbyists (and the corps/ultra-rich they represent), and at this point we need to free "our" democracies (means: people rule) from them. Shutting people up by telling them not to discuss politics is not going to help.

[cies]

> I don't think it is possible.

What I meant by this is that choosing an opensource license it to some extend already a political act.

[lorean_victor]

well it used to be, but that battle seems to have been largely won on some level too, at least all involved parties now realize the value of open-source (though some may just treat it as a PR asset rather than a platform for inclusive innovation and progress).

[cies]

I mean subtilities like going with a GPLv2 (+ commercial license), LGPLv2/3, GPLv3, BSD-like, CC0 or WTFPL... Or a combination! There you are already cross into politics IMHO. You made a statement, to a greater of lesser degree by choosing one (or more) of the mentioned licenses.