
Climate-Strike License - artur_makly
https://github.com/climate-strike/license
======
mikl
Using software covered by a license like this is the legal equivalent of
Russian roulette.

Without precedence, nobody knows how “The Software may not be used in
applications and services that are used for or aid in the exploration,
extraction, refinement, processing, or transportation of fossil fuels.” would
be interpreted in any of the thousands of different jurisdictions an online
business could be sued in.

In the broadest interpretation, almost any business with a large customer base
could be found in violation, because some customer has a customer that does
something related to oil.

So while this license might be well intentioned, it would make any open source
project that adopts it toxic to large corporations. That would cut off a lot
of potential corporate support, and spawn forks and competing projects.
Nothing good will come of this.

------
thinkingemote
See also: the Hippocratic License 2.1 "An Ethical License for Open Source
Projects" [https://firstdonoharm.dev/](https://firstdonoharm.dev/)

"prohibits the redistribution of the software in modified, derivative, or
collected work form from being relicensed to any individual or organization
which directly or indirectly facilitates, encourages, manipulates, coerces, or
forces people to engage in behaviors that are in conflict with the rights
enumerated in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights."

~~~
sgift
Especially the "indirectly" part is probably something everyone can be guilty
of if you search long enough. So, a great license if you want no one to use
whatever you write. No idea why you even bother licensing it then, but to each
their own.

~~~
thinkingemote
agreed. The atmosphere license seems to have better wording "...materially and
directly invested..."

------
lki876
Open source software works because it's easy to use. Start including limiting
clauses and you'll need lawyers to figure out what you can and can't use. Even
then, there's still the chance that downstream the package will still end up
somewhere you didn't intend. Which is why the current model is popular and
this isn't.

~~~
thinkingemote
the intention is not to make it easier for companies to use, it's to put a
burden on them. The aim is not to make the software widely used - but
ethically used.

~~~
lki876
> the intention is ... to put a burden on them

Sounds like a great model to get people to use software.

~~~
thinkingemote
Yes. it is not a model to get people to use it at all!!

I think the aim is not to get as many people to use the software. It's to get
certain people not to use it.

It's kind of like comparing a non profit to a for profit business and noticing
that the non profit does not have the aim to make more money.

I wouldn't expect any library or application to have this license on to become
popular at all. But there might be a use for better worded exclusive licenses
somewhere in our world.

------
thinkingemote
prior art? [https://www.open-austin.org/atmosphere-license/](https://www.open-
austin.org/atmosphere-license/)

The Atmosphere Licenses are open source, copyleft software licenses with
fossil fuel divestment provisions.

"a similar license that prohibits the redistribution of the software in
modified, derivative, or collected work form to any individual or organization
that is materially and directly invested in operations or facilities that have
significant negative impact on the global climate response, as documented by
the United Nations Climate Change Secretariat."

seems a bit more better worded than the climate strike license:

"The Software may not be used in applications and services that are used for
or aid in the exploration, extraction, refinement, processing, or
transportation of fossil fuels."

------
6d6b73
So if I create a library that helps chemists predict how to do something 30%
more efficiently, and I license it with this license, refineries won't be able
to use it, even if they are trying to improve their current processes to make
them more eco-friendly...

~~~
hkt
Yep, because the point is that at this stage, we are basically screwed if we
don't keep oil in the ground. There was a time when we could've focused on
efficiency and given ourselves another century. It passed in the 80s or 90s, I
expect.

~~~
6d6b73
And you wrote that on a device that would not exist without that oil.

------
sneak
This is not a free/libre software license.

------
Aerroon
Won't these oil and gas companies simply hire their own developers to create
software that they need? Doesn't that mean lots of development time will go
into solving problems other projects have already solved? This seems like it
could create competition, but it doesn't seem very likely to me that it would
ultimately help the environment.

Perhaps the awareness it spreads has a greater impact than the rest of it.

------
easterncalculus
I wonder where Stallman lies on this. 'There ought to be a law!!!' or his
actual beliefs.

------
wcerfgba
I can't see this post on any of the ranked (default) pages, has it been
demoted?

------
jimbob123
This is a disturbing new trend, open source software is just that, it is open
source. Defining who can and can't use it goes against the spirit of FOSS.

~~~
_Microft
Which they adressed in the last paragraph of the linked page:

 _" Is it an Open Source License?

While the Climate Strike License violates the Open Source Initiative's
canonical Open Source Definition, which explicitly excludes licenses that
limit re-use "in a specific field of endeavor", we feel that as tech workers,
we should take responsibility in how our software is used, and that the
urgency of climate change cannot be limited by the ideological position of
open source software. Instead, we want adopters of the Climate Strike License
to take a bold stance in the fight to save the planet."_

~~~
lki876
"the Climate Strike License violates the Open Source [Initiative]"

So it's not open source.

------
artur_makly
Prevent oil and gas companies from co-opting your work and extracting more
fossil fuels with this software license.

------
except
This seems nice on the surface, however I’m not sure it will be enforced at
all or easily for that matter.

------
PixyMisa
This reads like a parody of every bad "open source" license.

Particularly the list of offending projects. Requests? Sphinx?

------
hkt
Good. I always thought the stuff about letting weapons manufacturers and oil
companies etc use OSS was rubbish. May there be many more of these licenses -
perhaps ones stipulating gender balanced boards, or forbidding specific tax
practices, or banning union busting.

I accept my downvotes gladly, because at this point anyone who wants to
improve the world has to use any means at their disposal. Props to these
people.

