You can't change the license terms of code that isn't yours. That's why relicensing efforts similar to those undertaken by VNC a while ago was such a big deal. The VNC people had to contact every contribute and obtain their permission to change the license of a core library to (IIRC) LGPL. Normally, when projects make licensing changes, it is only allowed because they have some kind of legal authorization (e.g., copyright assignments in contributor agreements).
It states that (for non-white-hetero-males) there is no requirement to keep the license. I was under the impression that re-licensing is not such a big deal when the current license specifically allows it (such as this one does)?
That said, if it is illegal to discriminate and it's the only clause that's blocking you and the licence is otherwise GPL/BSD like, well... I guess it'll be a short run in court.
Oh, I get it. The license terms might allow it. Hm, speaking from my position of great privilege an power, this license seems pretty silly. I mean, what's its point?
Comments
It seems that it would be rather trivial to circumvent this:
1. Ask a friend who is not {male,white,hetero} to fork it on github
2. They make a small change
3. They change the license from this to MIT/BSD/GPL/whatever
Regardless of the legal status of the license, it only (ostensibly) has any effect on straight, white males who know only straight, white males.
(Also I find it mildly disapointing that it makes no mention of trans people, as a straight white trans man would also be "excluded" by this license)
You can't change the license terms of code that isn't yours. That's why relicensing efforts similar to those undertaken by VNC a while ago was such a big deal. The VNC people had to contact every contribute and obtain their permission to change the license of a core library to (IIRC) LGPL. Normally, when projects make licensing changes, it is only allowed because they have some kind of legal authorization (e.g., copyright assignments in contributor agreements).
It states that (for non-white-hetero-males) there is no requirement to keep the license. I was under the impression that re-licensing is not such a big deal when the current license specifically allows it (such as this one does)?
That said, if it is illegal to discriminate and it's the only clause that's blocking you and the licence is otherwise GPL/BSD like, well... I guess it'll be a short run in court.
"You are asked as a courtesy to retain this license in any derivatives but you are not required."
Pretty much allows it.
Oh, I get it. The license terms might allow it. Hm, speaking from my position of great privilege an power, this license seems pretty silly. I mean, what's its point?