Healthy open source communities don’t just form around code, but also around shared values and a vision for how their work can improve the world. The true measure of the success of open source is its impact— how the technologies we develop are leveraged to bring about positive social, cultural, and political change.
I like this license. I think some people in this comment section do not understand the purpose. An (open source) license is a tool that is used most effectively in determining what kind of entity uses your software. Use an mit or bsd license and everyone will use your software. Use a gpl license and large corporations might use it sometimes, but wont if there are alternatives and most likely wont incorporate it into any of their products.
This license might not be fully enforcable, but it is 100% poison to companies. Using this license(especially with the copyleft module) will almost certainly guarantee that only small projects will ever use it. Sure, it will kneecap your growth and your code will never see any real usage, but for some projects that might just be the best option.
Wait, so you’re saying the effect of this license is essentially the same as GPL, but you still think it’s a good idea to use it? Even though this license is AFAIK incompatible with most copyleft licenses, thus hindering your ability to use software licensed under these terms and restricting the use of your software by open source projects that operate under a different license?
What is the benefit that makes it worth that high a cost?
You should only use this license for projects you essentially want to fail in that way. If you want to ensure something you made does not get used for fuckery(say, for example, a virus you made for fun), you can use it. It’s a very niche license, but that doesn’t make it bad.
Okay, but how about you address my question now? If the effects are the same as GPL but it has a lot of downsides, why would you use it? What is its selling point?
The problem here is enforcement.