Really? Making software free is just about as political as it gets. Restricting that freedom, as happens here, is equally political. I guess you just don't this special kind of politics in your software.
I'd hate to say it, but including other political ideologies into the software license is making it more political. If the author of the software wants to, he is within his rights, but i think it's the wrong platform to try to voice his opinion.
A piece of software is a platform - but using this platform (granted to the author by the participation of a community) to further a different, unrelated ideology could be considered abuse of power. May be this war is extenuating circumstances - and understandable. But i'm concerned about the slippery slope.
Realistically a license change is not going to affect the course of the war, nor make putin reconsider. I argue that the effort is only going to inconvenience their users, without actually making a true change.
It may be better to ask for donations, etc, rather than changing the license as a political statement.
I disagree, I think using any platform you have to spread a message that is important to you is a GREAT use of said platform.
Anyone who thinks using your platform regardless of the context is bad are people who feel inconvenienced, threatened or annoyed by said message in which case, congratulations you successfully achieved your goal.
If Colin Kaepernick didn't use his platform as an NFL player and instead did something else like I don't know, stood outside his political offices holding a sign, would have had dramatically less impact and probably wouldn't have gone anywhere, but he used his platform and now look, we're still talking about it, black lives mattering, and all the messages he was intending to send what 4 years later?
you think that because the message resonates with you. You happen to agree with the ideology being presented.
If you truly are one who would allow such political messages to be sent via an unrelated platform, then you are also implicitly in agreement to acts of terrorism. After all, the terrorists are just using such platforms to spread their political message too. Of course, i can hear the rebuts - that terrorists aim to kill, and they don't deserve to say spread their opinions that way. But who's to judge? Who's to say that it is not right for them to do it, but for some inexplicable reason, it is right when the opinion being said is in line with your own?
I'm not one for making the world any more political than it already is. I disagree with the russian invasion of ukraine, but any action i take would be via my gov't - e.g., my taxes go towards paying for aid to ukraine, or charities donating.
I'm curious, do you support the separation of church and state? Public school would be a great platform for Christian principals to spread the good word of God.
Consider: "Open source is political": the power 'open source' relates to is the power of the licensed software's users to read the program's source code, and to redistribute/modify the program. Insofar as there's a moral vision to it, the idea of a world where users are unable to distribute/modify/etc. their software is worse than a world with open source software.
Whereas, the meta-statement "don't bring politics into discussions" is more like rules-of-engagement for discussion involving a diverse group of people. The 'political' in the statement refers to e.g. moral or ideological points of view. -- "asl2.0, but you have to agree abortion is murder" is 'political' in a different way than "asl2.0, you can't use this software if your name is Jared", because the restrictions itself is about a moral disagreement.