In response to this SPDX/Prosperity thread:
Basically, if you do all the necessary leg work to obtain an identifier on the SPDX License List for your FLOSS project, you can look forward to assisting the US mil-tech complex in all the… {GreatWork()} it does all around the world.
SPDX lead are wetting themselves:
‘…the [Linux Foundation] is keen to show [SPDX] in its best light. As such we are adding a page to the website to display logos of companies whose employees participate’.
For dissenters to pro-corporate, US mil/tech complex, the ISO standard, which is likely to be much more influential, looks as though it will be based on the latest spec which includes a useful method on using a short identifier. In itself, this method does not offer any resistance to the LF cabal, but it may be possible to construct a social domain license that achieves a very high level of adoption and could be more disruptive than either the anti-capitalist/NC/Ethical style licenses, the public-domain-equivalents like WTFPL and so forth. To do that, I think the license would have to be GPL compatible and broadly ‘permissive’ and yet disallow use by members of the LF cabal, possibly by explicitly disallowing use for sponsoring the SPDX project. This may circumvent some of the usual hullabaloo new licenses cause about restricting ‘fields of endeavor’ or ‘locking out users’. If the restriction is crafted the same way as maybe the anti-DRM thing is articulated in (FSF/OSI APPROVED) GPL3, we get something like:
No covered work shall be part of a standardization scheme prohibiting or restricting the adoption of software licenses.
When you convey a covered work, you waive any power to forbid the adoption of software licenses to the extent such anti-adoption measures are effected by standardization with respect to the covered work, and you disclaim any intention to limit use of the work as part of enforcing, against the work’s users, your or third parties’ legal rights any license anti-adoption through standardization schemes.