In this article, the #OpenSource Initiative has stated that "restricting access to open source distribution could be an effective means of protest" of the war in #Ukraine and that it is a "fine distinction" to make.
I strongly disagree for two primary reasons.
🇺🇳 If #FreeSoftware is considered as an aspect of the #HumanRights of education and expression, then access to that scientific work should be made available equally to all human beings without regard to nationality, race, religion, country of origin, or other status.
"If we didn't do this, there would be lots of pressure for cooperators to defect." -- OSI
If you want to pick and choose who gets your software based upon what country they're in, that's proprietary software.
@downey fully agreed. Here's another reason: bad actors will just ignore any means you want to restrict access to your code with. they will still use that code, whether you like it or not — that's one of the things that makes them *bad* in the first place.
But whatever means of restricting you choose to use might be effective at blocking people whom you would not actually object to supply with your code.
So it's actively harmful.
@downey I'm also a fan of the Debian Social Contract's "No Discrimination" clauses.
I mean, punching nazis is a good thing, but this doesn't sound as clear-cut.
A lot of people aren't aware (you may be!) but the Open Source Definition (OSI) evolved directly from the DFSG and both were originally written by Bruce Perens.
For people who care about, support, or build Free, Libre, and Open Source Software (FLOSS).