[entaloneralie]

It's a good stance, I commend it. Although, there's a history as to why the license is there.

The license exists there so that we were able to do take down requests on OpenSea. We had to make the asset license explicit for OpenSea to take down the copied works off their network.

In a different world where we are not made to participate in crypto ecosystems against our will, we would not have that restriction.

[abetusk]

I know I wouldn't want to restrict the use of my works just because there's a crypto bro out there that might profit from an NFT.

When putting software under a libre/free license, there are compromises to be made to promote freedom. One of them is accepting that the software that's created might be used for purposes that are considered bad by the author, such as being used by military entities for violence [0]. This would be the same argument I would make for artistic works, where I would argue that the benefits of providing freedom in use of the works outweighs the potential for abuse.

Part of my worry is that there's a large part of technology that is artistic (writing, text, pictures, illustration, art, music, etc.) that will be buried under a century of copyright. The overlong copyright terms means that parts of our culture will be restricted from the commons well beyond the window of relevancy.

[0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NoMilitary

[entaloneralie]

When it happens to you, you can see how you react. I sure remember having your stance at one point, in the abstract. My personal use of license is reactionary to the situations I've experienced.

I never really looked into the GPL before, their stance on military use includes freedom of usage for institutions whose purpose is surveillance and warfare, my gut feeling is that they might not have asked themselves freedom for whom? the missile manufacturer? I'm not sure that this sounds like freedom.

I'll say this right out, I'll bounce out of open source if I ever see my code used for military purposes. I'll keep releasing works under the MIT until I can no longer in good conscience do so.

[abetusk]

Thanks for the clarity, I think I have a more consistent view of your ethics now.

I'm not sure if it's cultural, but in the US there's a strong sentiment for freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is most important not when people are saying things that one agrees with, but when they are saying things for which one disagrees.

The FSF's stance on software freedom is almost surely well thought out and deeply ideological. On one hand, it means that for every bad case scenario, the freedom allows the option for other good case scenarios. On the other hand, it identifies how difficult and fickle it is to enforce a purity test for usage and that any organization involved in such a decision is bound to be corrupted.

Note that MIT is one of the more permissive libre/free licenses, allowing for commercial re-use without a copyleft component, network usage without providing source or patent exemption. At the very least, you might want to consider GPL or AGPL as they might help some of the bad use cases you're trying to guard against.

[yesbabyyes]

Crockford's license seems like a good alternative in this case! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4762107