You're at the mercy of people like this if you don't wanna fiddle with building each release like it's gentoo~
There's nothing I can find in foss that doesn't have a meme license that's hardened
@PurpCat @HonkHonkBoom I have a feeling that most of the woke part of the FOSS movement is going to leave the movement and join the ethical software movement once they all realize that freedom 0 allows the people they hate to use their software and there is nothing they can do about that.
Hell, the only viable GoodReads equivalent for the Fedi isn't FOSS. It's using one of those anit-capitalist licenses (meaning that only individuals and worker co-ops can use it). I can see some group of far-leftists either writing an OS using one of those licenses or forking a permissively licensed OS and licensing that under an "ethical" license.
@PurpCat @HonkHonkBoom Wouldn't it make more sense for the corporations to just have their rewritten software just be proprietary or under some source-available license like what MongoDB does? It makes sense for a corporation to fork a program licensed under BSD/MIT, but I don't get why they themselves would license it that way.
Google has been trying to replace Linux/Android in some applications with this new OS called Fuchisa. Wanna know what it's licensed under? That's right, MIT/BSD/Apache. The BSD guys and corporate whores, many of whom the woke types happen to be (the anti-capitalist license types probably work at McDonald's or live on grants), absolutely hated the GPL back in the day and called it a poison pill. I'm sure if I could dig, I could find more stuff about this going back to the 00s but I found two things to prove a point:
https://www.zdnet.com/article/is-the-gpl-really-user-hostile-5000096138/
https://mail.zope.dev/pipermail/zope/2000-September/117604.html
In fact, this is one of the theories behind "rewrite it in rust", because so many Rust replacements use the MIT/BSD licenses.