There's a bug somewhere in the JS that has to do with overflow handling. If the window size is large enough to accommodate a section, it's selectable. If the section extends off the bottom of the page, it's not selectable.

Enforceability of individual licenses is a deeply complex topic that lay-people such as myself are unlikely to be able to comment on in any meaningful way.

As a result, I believe that until the ethical source movement has enough funding (or pro-bono volunteer hours available) we should not worry too much about enforceability as we draft and discuss mechanisms for licensing.

Yet, while I do not believe mandating enforceability in these early drafts is a reasonable constraint; I do think it's something we want to learn more about so that future versions of ethical licenses, bylaws, operating agreements, terms of use, and other legal documents are likely to be more resilient in the event of a challenge in court.

That said, I am curious if the broader ethical source and open source community believes we should prioritize enforcement at such an early stage?

A common (and valid) critique is that businesses will withhold economic support from or refuse to use projects who choose to use a more restrictive license or terms of use. This is further compounded by the degree to which open source maintainers labor is extracted by corporations who rely on open source or other intellectual property that belongs to the commons without providing economic.

At this time, I believe it is best for project maintainers to make the call on a case-by-case basis whether the adoption of an ethical license would meet their projects' adoption goals or improve or reduce their ability to continue to maintain their projects in a sustainable manner.

However, I also believe there are mechanisms we can pursue to mitigate this risk, as well as to attempt to supplement lost income by providing direct economic support for projects who adopt ethical licenses in a similar manner to RubyTogether, TideLift, or similar.

I am curious to what degree the broader open-source community and the ethical source community would encourage the contributors and maintainers of the ethical source project to prioritize mitigating this risk; and failing that, backstopping it with meaningful economic support?

If Ethical Source's goal is to stop those who support ICE and the DOD, then why are you hosting everything on here? Use GitLab.

GitHub is owned by MS, who has ICE contracts.

@natachaS or @thejsa , are either of you interested in taking this on?

Is that as easy as deleting this line from config?

Will take this on 🥳

Need to set up a blog/ directory with an index page

It happens on the blog index page (https://ethicalsource.dev/blog/) between roughly 600px 800px browser window width. Perhaps the media queries need to be adjusted?

Follow on from #46 to re-frame without Gitlab.com which also has questionable business practices and relies on Microsoft infrastructure so is actually not a solution.

I also dropped the comment regarding Autonomic hosting: #46 (comment).

However, there are others!

• https://codeberg.org
• https://framagit.org
• https://git.coop

Can take on this migration if there is consensus behind it.

@5hel2l2y, are you interested in taking this on?

While reading the definition, something occurred to me that I wonder about.

The 4th and 5th criteria refer to the software’s “creators”, but the second talks about community contributions. Does this imply that the “creators” may be distinct from the “community”? Does this definition intentionally punt on how one defines “creators” to whom these powers are granted?

To be clear: I understand and agree with the spirit expressed here. I’m more wondering if y'all have thoughts on how best to defend this sort of assertion of rights against potential attack by someone claiming rights as a “creator” in order to undermine the protections others are trying to put in place.

Hi! I'm excited by the work you're doing to bring ethics and open source together.

Looking at the third clause in the ethical source definition:

3. Its community is governed by a code of conduct that is consistently and fairly enforced.

This doesn't capture the idea that the code of conduct itself should be ethical.

I don't know how to change the wording to capture the idea that a no-op code of conduct doesn't make a community 'ethical'. One simple approach might be to refer directly to the contributor covenant here?

While I am very much in line with what this project stands for I am saddened to see visiting ethicalsource.dev triggers Google Analytics without giving any hint on it or even giving me the possibility to opt in (or opt out) of data collection. I would like the web to be a friendly place without having to use uBlock or similar.

In case this site really needs analytics, I would be very happy to see a notion to adopt something more privacy friendly (there are plenty of hosted or self-hosted options out there) or to drop Google Analytics altogether.

👋 As the maintainer of a Ruby gem, RSpec, I love the concept of ethical source and am considering how to adopt it, a page of guidance on this would be great.

@gr2m , are you interested in taking this on?

@madduci , are you interested in taking this on?

After try to run hugo server -D

I got the following error.

$hugo server -D                                                                                                                                 

Error: from config: MediaType.Suffix is removed. Before Hugo 0.44 this was used both to set a custom file suffix and as way
to augment the mediatype definition (what you see after the "+", e.g. "image/svg+xml").

This had its limitations. For one, it was only possible with one file extension per MIME type.

Now you can specify multiple file suffixes using "suffixes", but you need to specify the full MIME type
identifier:

[mediaTypes]
[mediaTypes."image/svg+xml"]
suffixes = ["svg", "abc" ]

In most cases, it will be enough to just change:

[mediaTypes]
[mediaTypes."my/custom-mediatype"]
suffix = "txt"

To:

[mediaTypes]
[mediaTypes."my/custom-mediatype"]
suffixes = ["txt"]

Note that you can still get the Media Type's suffix from a template: {{ $mediaType.Suffix }}. But this will now map to the MIME type filename.

This is my hugo version installed using brew

 $ hugo version                                                                                                                                 
Hugo Static Site Generator v0.58.3/extended darwin/amd64 BuildDate: unknown

@laurentzziu, would you like to take this on?

The OES shouldn't be present only on Twitter – a platform that exploits its users' privacy. The OES should also use Mastodon – a free and open-source microblogging platform that resembles Twitter in its functionality but doesn't track users or display ads.

The landing page says:

We’ve seen the Open Source Initiative prioritizing software freedom over basic human rights.

I may be biased due to my personal relationships with members of the OSI, but this seems like a mischaracterization. OSI merely (and correctly) pointed that the license under discussion did not meet the terms of an open source license and that calling it open source was therefore confusing.

I appreciate the boldness of this statement overall but find this particular sentence misleading and alienating.

Together with the problems that unethical uses of software brings, I've been seeing other kinds of complaints around open-source lately. Mostly on the fact that big companies like Amazon use foss to gain a great amount of money while not actually contributing anything back to the projects that they use for that.

License zero tries to solve that but it doesn't solve the rest of ethical problems that are being treated here.

My idea to try to avoid things like that would be a license that would be free to use for most cases, but that required some kind of contribution to the project in cases where the company's revenue depended on the software being developed or maintained, for example. With some kind of escalation, it's not the same for a 2-person startup to use the software than it is for Amazon.

The thing is, as it is, the definition for ethical source wouldn't allow for this kind of license, since it wouldn't be free to use for all uses that didn't go against the definition, and I don't think it allows to restrict for commercial usage either. So my question: is what would be the way to get something like that to work in an easy way?

@amrabdelwahab , would you be interested in taking this on?

https://ethicalsource.dev/definition/

"Its creators have the right to prohibit its use by individuals or organizations engaged in human rights violations or other behavior that they deem unethical".

Right to prohibit use when there are human rights violations is ok.
But here is a hole which enables censorship: "or other behavior that they deem unethical".

You should define which "unethical" considerations from community is valid or not.