Why? In what world does using software to marginalize people or mislead the public create a better world?
The road to hell ... something something ... good intentions.
Who defines what 'marginalization of people' means (a strange term if you really think about it), and why would you think they would get that definition right?
The software creators, which seems very reasonable to me. This isn't some arbitrary judge deeming what is marginalizing or not. This is the creators of the software saying "We don't want to build something that complete dickweeds can use for evil."
Don't like their definition of "dickweeds" or "evil"? Fine, build your own shit then.
I understand that people want to look at this like a kind of slippery slope (if you can define one kind of restriction, why not define another and another - until you have closed source software by any other name) - but just because arbitrary restrictions mean something isn't colloquially "open" doesn't mean that certain specific restrictions might not still reasonably be compatible with something described as "open".
Certainly we should not accept a formalized definition of any language term like this; i.e. just because an OSI or other group wishes to claim the definition of open source doesn't mean we all need to use that definition. Specifically, let's not accept https://opensource.org/docs/osd as a kind of gospel truth. It's a fine initiative, but not necessarily the only possible one.
I'm not convinced that allowing a few restrictions would be a great idea, but then again, I'm also sure it would be dramatically different from the status quo, nor that is makes sense to no longer call such software open source.
On top of that, even if all the groups shared the same views you’d still need to suddenly spend a lot of time understanding each group before you used their software, and you’d need to continue to keep an eye on their views to ensure you are complying.
Thanks but I will stick to the plain old open source licenses like ISC, MIT, GPL, and Apache.
> The software creators
I don't understand how that could work. Would "marginalizing people" have any concrete legal definition at all or would it literally be anything the creator decides now or in the future?
Software creator says I'm marginalizing people, I deny it and refuse to stop using their library. How would a court sort that out?
Sure. Do what you want but don't try to claim that this is a good license. It's the opposite of a good license. It's ambiguous, capricious, and arbitrary.
That could be applied to *anything*, it doesn't have any substance.
>(Do Not)Use ml5.js to build tools that discriminate against marginalized communities
That could be better put as
>(Do Not)Use ml5.js to build tools that discriminate
By adding in "marginalized communities", they are creating loopholes. Some discrimination is good, as long as it is to people we don't like. Is discrimination against Chinese allowed? In the big picture, Chinese are the majority of the world population.
No, they are roughly 1/5th of it.
Population by Country China 18.47% India 17.70% USA 4.25%
I could take your argument and use it to say that Christians are not the majority even though they are 31.11% if looking at the religious population size.
By mostly my point was to highlight that you can spin and manipulate the CoC however you want, thus leaving the CoC Steering Committee either over worked trying to enforce the CoC of using selective enforcement where they only go after "bad" people.
Also: >(Do Not)Use ml5.js to build tools to disingenuously manipulate public opinion
Would ingenuous manipulation be acceptable? https://www.wordnik.com/words/ingenuous adjective Of honorable extraction; freeborn; noble.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So is fairness and justice I fear.