I don't get it. What does "allowing that one's politics is partially flawed" have to do with not wanting one's project used for surveillance, weapons control, etc?
I think 1 and 2 are more the issue, but possibly all of them. They are all loose definitions that mean different things to different people. I think it would limit serious uptake once a legal department gets a hold of it.
(1) discriminating against marginalized communities
What does this mean? I bet I could get several different answers. Old people are marginalized by agism in tech, does this mean tech companies can't use this? How would they prove they don't marginalize old people?
(2) building tools that disingenuously manipulate public opinion
Ditto. To me this means no political party or marketing/advertising department can use this. Probably most news outlets as well.
(3) building tools of mass surveillance and prediction to repress the rights of people
Rights defined by whom? US Constitution? Right not to be offended? Rights granted by the Taliban or ISIS? Communist China?
(4) building tools that control weapons, including tools that automate the deployment, operation, and targeting of weapons.
I think most people can get on board with this one, unless we were attacked in earnest by a strong military foe.
If you have a political position that all weapons are bad and all surveillance is bad then I think that is a deeply flawed viewpoint. What we want to avoid is improper use of weapons and surveillance. Where those things go into the realm of abuse. Of course, "abuse" is a subjective word for these things too, but I think there's a general consensus that some things are bad.
Do you think that having a camera in your backyard constitutes surveillance? Does a baby monitor constitute surveillance? Does a drone with a camera constitute surveillance? It can be used for this, after all.
No matter what you think, the authors might disagree, so you have no way of using the software in anything related to it. Worse yet, this can quickly change - the system you built that uses this software in the background might be totally fine to watch a womans shelter, but the license could be pulled any minute because the authors dislike that you also sold your product to a normal prison.
Believing in human rights is only political because certain normal human biological variations and geographic distributions have been politicized by people who want to use software to strengthen that politicization. Encoding reason regarding treatment of those variations and distributions in license agreements is a patch to address politicization.
Would you say that you should have to work with every potential client who ever approaches you, whether or not they intend to pay, and whether or not they set fire to your dog last fall?
Why? I mean, don't you believe you have a say on who you grant permission to use your intellectual property?
> Also, I think a person has a mortal obligation to allow that their political position is at least partially flawed.
This assertion makes no sense. You should not be forced to help advance anyone's goals when they are diametrically opposite to what you believe in and can be outright hostile towards you and your loved ones.
> Why? I mean, don't you believe you have a say on who you grant permission to use your intellectual property?
If the author of some software has a general good-faith position that others should use their software, then the conditions they associate with that software fall on a continuum from "reasonable to "unreasonable".
The MIT license is at the reasonable end. Saying "give me ten million dollars for this ROT13 algorithm" is at the unreasonable end.
When the person you replied to said:
> They can, which doesn't mean they should.
I think they were saying they personally considered the terms of the license at the "unreasonable" end. I don't disagree- saying "you can use this for now, but have to stop immediately if I or anyone I might sell this to say so" seems at least borderline unreasonable.
It certainly isn't "free software", though being wrapped in what is otherwise the Blue Oak license they're kind of hiding their non-free-ness. I think this is where I mostly take issue- it feels like the project is attempting to portray itself as a free software project, when it is not.
> If the author of some software has a general good-faith position (...)
The "good-faith position" weasel words only serve to try to fabricate and cast doubt on the morality of a decision on how your work can and should be used, and only because you find it inconvenient. For some reason, your argument completely eliminates the author from the decision process. Do you find that to be fair or in good faith?
Meanwhile, I never saw anyone attack musicians based on "morality" for refusing to authorize the use of their work by specific politicians or specific election campaigns, even when authors only claim personal preferences or even prefering other candidates.
> For some reason, your argument completely eliminates the author from the decision process. Do you find that to be fair or in good faith?
As someone reading through this: Yes. I find that argument both reasonable and fair.
The author is free to ask for compensation up front in exchange for the tool they've built. They can also just simply refuse to license it in the first place.
But a license that I can violate if the author simply changes their mind is quicksand: Nothing of value can be built on it, because it might sink at ANY POINT.
The "good faith position" weasel words, along with the rest of my comment regarding the whole thing being a spectrum of subjective reasonableness, serve to make it clear that this is a highly subjective topic where you and I have different opinions.
Where I personally draw the line is something being presented as a "general purpose tool", versus as an exclusive work.
When Stuart Stemple created a pink pigment and granted license to use it to "everyone except Anish Kapoor", I thought it was a great artistic statement, but as a practical matter I think it's unreasonable.
It's the difference between a whitelist and a blacklist. Saying "you can use this if you meet these criteria (e.g. having no criteria, having paid me money, etc)" is okay, but saying "everyone can use this EXCEPT if I decide I don't want you too" is not. In my opinion.
Musicians can say they would rather someone not use a song but they sold their rights a long time ago. Very few own those songs they wish others not to use.
Also, I think a person has a mortal obligation to allow that their political position is at least partially flawed.