SQL Workbench – Republicans not welcome
sql-workbench.eu
sql-workbench.eu
[1] https://github.com/benlk/misc-licenses/blob/master/stallman-... [2] https://stuartsemple.com/anish-kapoor-banned-worlds-pinkest-...
> # Historical note
> Because the Schrödinger License r0 was released without the exception added in r2, everything in the light cone of commit https://github.com/benlk/misc-licenses/commit/0bbee5aff743e5... is subject to r0 of the Schrödinger License. If you are not sure whether you are covered by r0 of this license: calculate the time distance from 2:15 a.m. EDT July 29 2013 to the current time, multiply that by the speed of light, and draw a sphere with that radius centered on the position of North America at 2:15 a.m. EDT July 29 2013. If you are within that sphere, you are covered by the license. If you were present on Earth at that time, you are covered by the license.
It's been a few decades since I read it, but Free Software, Free Society is pretty clear about its political intent.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freed...
I'm not saying this person cares about the free software movement, or has any requirement to help it thrive, but if you do, and you license software like this, you're an idiot.
It doesn't stop "bad people" (whomever you think that is) using the software, they just disregard the license.
It does stop "good people" - people who want to comply with your license - from using your software. Because you're not a lawyer, and your license is so sloppily drafted, so loosely written, that your prohibitions could apply to almost anyone; it would take a lot of effort on their part to be sure. Your software can't be included in distros, because they can't enforce your bespoke conditions. Basically, all decent people should avoid your software for their own good.
Honestly, just look at how awful his license is: https://www.sql-workbench.eu/manual/license.html#license-res... - now note that it has not defined what "government" means or "any of its organisations" means or "directly related" means or "download" or "use" means. So let's say I'm a contractor for a third party road crew and I fill in potholes identified by the parish council, am I working for an organisation "directly related" to a "government" on the shitlist? And if I am, I could copy the software easily if given to me on a CD or USB stick (because the surrounding Apache license allows it), but I'm prohibited from "downloading" it. I'm not prohibited from "uploading" it, or having someone "upload" it to me. This guy is just a crank, he's not a lawyer, and he really didn't think this through.
(The actual license seems to only restrict the government from using it, though.)
There is of course A distinct difference between discrimination based on characteristics you were born with and those you appear to have chosen.
But then, you get the slippery slope of sociopath and schizophrenics who have a genetic tendency towards certain behaviors... Who's to say that MAGAs or Nazis aren't born with a genetic tendency towards that behavior?
Same deal with MAGAs and Nazis. Their genetic tendencies (if any) don't give them a right to harm others. When they do so, they break the social contract that gives others a reason to tolerate their behavior, just like anyone else breaking that social contract.
Reasons other people might also want to avoid the software include:
* Its lifecycle might be encumbered by this license (e.g., not included by some distros, and the general open source user base puts its contributions behind something more inclusive or accessible).
* For some purposes, a nonstandard license needs special vetting by lawyers for approval, and this one has what I'd guess are some legal and PR bombs in it.
* The author may be a reasonable and principled person, with their heart in the right place, who's exercised their rights in how they license their creations... But are they reacting from some crisis mode of concern about all the wrongs in the world, and could this mode deteriorate into unwelcome surprises from the much more limited perspective of third-party software users? (Will the project become abandoned? Will someone push out undesirable or even trojan software changes? Will the banned parties list be expanded in some way untenable for you?)
This is just the inevitable fallout of our inability to have nice things.
May all find joy in their choices.
What partisan pretensions are on offer with the GPL are unclear.
While a FSF member for decades, I take a syncretic view that the GPL is a crucial point on the licensing spectrum, and that economic value is maximized when there are products available across that spectrum for people to choose and use at will.
I guess, if we squint, this might be something of a political position, perhaps a libertarian one.
The FSF is very concerned with who has power within the relationship of software author and user -- namely that users should retain the power to redistribute and edit their software.
If someone is trying to ensure a community retains power or someone is trying to ensure a community loses access to power, that's politics too.
If they stuck to just the names that would have been less annoying, but they had a release where it would automatically start typing a message.
I stopped using it and stopped donating soon afterwards.
But if these licenses are rarely enforced, then what difference does it make
Busybox is best exception that comes to mind; but enforcement seems to have fizzled out anyway
For this "SQL Workbench" software, how would license enforcement work
1. How does the author of free software detect that a Republican is using it <-- This is what I am most curious about
2. If the author detects a Republican using the software, then what will he do about it; how much is he willing to spend on lawyers
The author apparently doesn't want his/her software to be used by right-wing fascists.
Which seems to be an understandable point of view in times where democratic values and human rights are treated as "communism" or "radical left"
What statement
The comment asks questions about detecting license violations and enforcing license provisions with respect to free software
It uses this "SQL Workbench" software as an example
The questions are not specific to SQL Workbench, the SQL Workbence license, or the SQL Workbench author
For example, replace "Republicans" with something like "anyone the author dislikes, for whatever reason"
If it is "free software", where no registration is required, no telemetry, no surveillance, etc., then
1. How does the author detect violations, i.e., someone the author dislikes is using the software
2. How does the author enforce the license, i.e., stop such persons from using the software
In any case, just please do not call this Open Source :)
That's not limited to belonging to a political party, that seems to indicate agreeing with any of the politics. According to polls, the majority of americans agree with some republican policies, like reducing illegal immigration, and no boys in girl sports. Does that mean most american's cant use this?
FWIW, the list of parties here seems predominantly focused on the US and Europe, with one party listed from Russia. I suspect that omissions from this list are not endorsements, but rather uncommon enough on the global stage to not warrant mentioning. The author doesn't go through and mention the Klan either, but like, the Klan isn't really openly active in the US government.
~25% AfD
~25% CDU/CSU aka "AfD mit Substanz"
CSU
??? Werteunion
??? Die Heimat
??? Die Basis
??? Freie Wähler
??? BündnisDeutschland
~4% Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht
It seems that this software is only to be used by those on the left side of the political spectrum but not everyone on the left - Sahra Wagenknecht (BSW) is certainly on the left but she does not pass the mustard. SPD/Linke (the former eastern German communist party for those who don't know their history - the party which was responsible for ordering people to be shot for the 'crime' of wanting to leave the country) and the Grüne ('Greens', just like water melons they are green only on the outside but deep red on the inside) are welcome as are those remaining few FDP (a liberal party) voters. I don't know the other parties - Werteunion, Heimat, Basis, Freie Wähler and Bündnis Deutschland - but since they don't show up in the polls they're not that interesting in this context.
Democrats aren't on the left side of the political spectrum, but it appears they can use this software. (Yes, they are called the left in the US, but the mainstream positions of the Democratic party are globally center or center-right.)
But also, I would argue that modern leftist parties tend to be less interested in human rights violations and more interested in taking care of everyone (even if that means taking wealth away from the wealthy, which many would consider violative but probably isn't "contempt for human rights")
They are far left on cultural topics (e.g. favoring retributive discrimination, wanting frivolous late term abortions to be legal) and far left in their attempted "solutions" to issues like homelessness (rewarding what they try to stop), crime (not enforcing the law if it would make client groups look bad, e.g. making theft under $1k a misdemeanor), education (e.g. abolishing measures of competence).
Some of that is performative, some of it is clientelism. But there are a lot of influential Democrat positions are held by sincere (cultural) leftists.
I don't think these are the positions held by the Democrat party at large. I don't deny they exist within the party, but this isn't what a Biden or Pelosi are pushing for.
But the politics of the Dems are absolutely pro-capital, pro-moderate, pro-"nothing fundamentally changes". Biden, Obama, Harris, and Clinton were all "let's not make any radical shifts here, the markets will sort us out, we just need some easily ignorable guard rails on them" candidates.
I don't think the party, at the national level, contains many leftists. Perhaps Sanders (though I think of him as a soc-dem, not a dem-soc, based on his policy positions), and he's not even a member of the party anymore.
I've seen this line of argument before, "You wouldn't say this if it was YOUR TEAM" and like, yeah, I would? I have a belief that people should be able to freely associate? Why would it matter if it was left groups or right groups or centrist groups?
You have to break out of this "us vs them" notion of politics, it's deeply unhealthy. Parties don't matter, politicians don't matter, policies matter. Be pro/anti- some policy. Who cares what color team has that policy?
It is a good thing that just like this person we all are free to choose which products to use and which to avoid.
As an aside I do wonder why so many former west-Germans ended up so far to the left while their former east-German compatriots - who have suffered for close to half a century under a left-wing regime - went the opposite way. I also notice that many 'educated' former west-Germans consider themselves to be morally superior to those AfD-voting former east-Germans which seems quite incongruous given the political left's insistence on using people's 'lived experience' as a guideline on where the truth lies. Does this 'lived experience' not count if it goes against the desired narrative?
For example, I am an American citizen, born and raised. I have never lived outside of the United States. My father, now deceased, was from Nicaragua, but he was an American citizen also. However, by ending birthright citizenship, I can can be deported simply for being liberal, if the Supreme Court allows this.
If you guys don’t care about your Constitution, then I wish you all the best of luck.
You’ll care when you need the government to heed a court decision taken against them and they completely ignore it. At that point though, it’s too late.
Incidentally, many of those who were deported did have the consent of the courts to remain.