| > Leave politics out of the tools you build. Politics don't belong there. Why not? I understand the argument that it will be problematic for consumers to intermingle licenses; that's fine, if it's cheaper for you to rebuild a library than it is to audit licenses then that's fine. Beyond that, I don't understand why it's undesirable for you to specify that your creations are not used in ways that you find morally reprehensible. It's functionally the same as an embargo; we, as a nation, ban trade of items with nations whom we have found guilty of violating some moral principle. I would counter that by allowing your work to be used in potentially immoral acts, you are complicit in those acts. If you create an image recognition algorithm that ends up being used in drones, you have helped the resulting drone strikes be launched just as if you had worked for the army. You are effectively working for the army, but for free. > This "ethical code" movement will only gum up the works by mixing in a whole bunch of incompatible licenses Which we literally already have. Have you looked up the compatibility chart for the GPL? Almost nothing widely used is compatible with it: http://gplv3.fsf.org/wiki/index.php/Compatible_licenses Not to mention that none of your examples are incompatible. Sure, one could potentially have a license that says "you must use it in nuclear tech", but that seems odd, no? |