Quoth prototype: > I also thought about this problem some time ago and asked google > about a open source license which restricts harmful use - and this > is what i got: > the "Peaceful Open Source License" [1]: > > Clause 1 and 2 come from the BSD 2-Clause license. > Clause 3 is meant to ensure that the project continues to be > open and available to the public. > Clause 4 is our "No Military Use" clause. > The disclaimer is adapted from the BSD 2-Clause license. > > > Is there anything against using this license?
1) It's incompatible with most free software licenses. [0] 2) Copyright law is the wrong place to do this; it covers distribution - if I take your mail client, load it onto a missile, and fire the missile, I'm not redistributing your code, so the terms of the license don't kick in. Well, maybe I am, but only if the missile is very ineffective ;) Domain restrictive licensing is a bad idea even if it didn't make software non-free (it does). Even for domains that you definitely disagree with. Debian probably has lots written about that, if not you should be able to find convincing arguments against it plenty of places. It's one of those things that sounds like a good idea at first glance, but really isn't. 0. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NoMilitary
