Ideological contents aside:
> does not exploit the labor of non-members
This is not good legal terminology and so makes it a bad license. People who want to prevent monetization by a closed-source company are probably still better off with the AGPL.
> does not exploit the labor of non-members
This is not good legal terminology and so makes it a bad license. People who want to prevent monetization by a closed-source company are probably still better off with the AGPL.
I have no comment on the rest of the clauses so to anyone passing by, don't base any response to me as if I have an opinion.
If that is correct, there would be no restriction on them buying and using supplies from other organizations that do exploit labor.
No definition of "exploit". That word means different things when read in a marxist, capitalist, or legal context, and probably different things in branches of each.
This section needs to be clarified, as is the license is perilously unusable.