On one hand, I ask myself what I would have done if I worked at IBM in the 1930s[0]
On the other hand, as an LGBT person, I firmly believe that maximal freedom of speech protects vulnerable people from erasure.
What this means for free software is a tough question.
It's very easy to say things like this without fully comprehending all of the implications. Here's an example: Google restricted the usage of its own product, Google Maps, in an effort to halt the killing of Ukrainians by Russian armed forces, who were using Google Maps to launch their operations. This directly contradicts your claim.
Could this act actually awaken an IT team to the atrocities, in a way that makes a difference?
[0] https://writing.kemitchell.com/2022/03/05/Russia-to-Legalize...
Wouldn't “Israeli” be the more appropriate analog here?
> Would you be comfortable with an open source license that bans Jewish users because of the Palestinian conflict?
Comfortable is a loaded term here. No I wouldn't, but I could break that down to: Is it something that a maintainer should ...
* legally be able to do - YES
* consider likely to make a difference in the conflict - NO
* consider to be good for the OSS ecosystem - NO
* consider ethically wise - NO
* still consider an OSS license - NO, but I think one could be constructed that had more generic restrictions against human rights abuses, or use by militaries, or similar general restriction. Would that meet OSI definitions? Not sure I care, but I wouldn't be too concerned even I think it would be better to keep things simple.
It is worth noting that OSS distributed from the US as part of sale, still is subject to EAR. While we benefit from having a global community of OSS, local laws still apply in any number of circumstances.