Or maybe a catchier name would be a “basic human decency GPL extension”
I can’t help but notice that organisations constantly co-opt free software which was developed with the intent to promote freedom, use it to spread hate and ideas which will ultimately infringe on freedom for many.
The fact that hateful people who use such software may then go on to use it to promote or otherwise support fascism which prevents others from enjoying the software in the way it was imagined, is one potential manifestation of the paradox of tolerance in this respect. I think this is particularly true for e.g. social media platforms and the fediverse.
My proposal to combat this would be the introduction of a “paradox of tolerance” license which says that organisations which use the software must enforce a bare-minimum set of rules to combat intolerance. So anti-racism, anti-homophobia, anti-transphobia, etc. The idea is then to make overtly hateful organisations legally liable for the use of the software through the incompatibility of the requirements with their hateful belief system.
This could be an extension to GPL and AGPL where the license must be replicated in modified versions of the software, thereby creating virality with these rules.
Is this a thing already? I understand OS and FOSS have historically had a thing for political neutrality but are we not starting to find the faults with this now?
How about instead of restricting use of the software, adding in a clause that states "Use of this software is a formal acknowledgement and agreement by the user that race and gender are a social construct, gender identity and sexual orientation is a spectrum, humans can not be illegal,… " etc.
Thus use of the software is not restricted and is still open source, but forces groups, organizations, and people who disagree with the above to acknowledge something counter to their system of power.
i dont think that would be actually meaningful in any way unless its something that can have actual consequences for them. theyve shown they themselves think their own words are meaningless.
I think you underestimate the hate.
For the organisations that want to deny the ideals suggested. Using software under such a licence would lose them support. So when developers select such a licence. The software itself gets recognised as such. Meaning any shitty organisation using it gets labeled unacceptable to their very user base.
So requiring the acceptance of these facts would have the same effect as anything else.