Could you give some examples of this trend? (Not aware of it, personally—curious to see an example)
Bruce Perens wrote about this in late 2019[1][2], specifically focusing on the "hippocratic license", proponents of which IIRC at the time attempted to spark a debate if the Open Source definition needs to be changed, to allow discrimination like this.
[1] https://perens.com/2019/10/12/invasion-of-the-ethical-licens...
[2] https://perens.com/2019/09/23/sorry-ms-ehmke-the-hippocratic...
> I’m aware of efforts to build proof-of-stake models. I’ll care once the total energy consumption of all cryptocurrencies drops to a non-bullshit level.
> I will summarily close issues related to Bitcoin or cryptocurrency in any way.
Have we seen any creator of a deep learning library, take a similar position if not stopping any support for anyone using it for mass surveillance or burning up the planet by using their deep learning library to train it on tons of GPUs in the cloud until the data centres catch fire? I don't think so.
It's business as usual for them as the author is getting upset over PoW systems to taint all of them under the same brush despite many alternatives that are more energy efficient than others.
I believe the original creator of YOLO actually quit for that reason.
ml5.js license:
> This license gives everyone as much permission to work with this software as possible as long as they comply with the ml5.js Code of Conduct [...]
ml5.js code of conduct:
> Do not: [...] Use ml5.js to build tools of mass surveillance and prediction to repress the rights of people
https://github.com/ml5js/ml5-library/blob/main/LICENSE.md
Not sure how enforcable this is but it exists.
While I'm not necessarily saying I agree with either, the first is certainly less reasonable than the second (and the two examples linked are of the second kind).