I know many here are also fans of typography, so I thought this was worth sharing.
The article is quite readable and manages to address some of the central issues regarding enforceability, specifically the issue of specificity.
Some Type Foundries Want to Restrict Usage of Their Fonts on Ethical Grounds. Will It Work?
Thanks so much for sharing this! I hadnāt hear of this at all.
Fun contrast: https://boingboing.net/2020/06/24/goldman-sachs-releases-its-own.html
This share has just made my day. So narcissistic. But I kept digging and found the actual license.
https://design.gs.com/foundation/goldman-sans-license
Looks like those sections were amended.
In July 2020, Goldman Sachs removed the non-disparagement part of the font licence. C.2.b now reads:
āThe User may not use the Licensed Font Software to suggest any affiliation with or endorsement by Goldman Sachs.ā
EULAās, permissive licenses (and copyleft) are all (strictly speaking) āethical licensesā. The āethicalā in āethical licensingā points to a small basket of licenses that advance the political preferences of the people that write them is a marketing buzzword. All copyright, copyleft and all licenses, all of them would be better referred to as āpolitical licensesā IMO. I have not yet come across any licensing scheme that can be reliably evaluated/distinguished using ethical criteria. I suspect either all licenses are ethical, or none of them are?
OK, I guess. But what does āethicalā mean, then? 
On a lighter note, I occasionally manage to rib somebody with āunethical licensesā as the opposite of āethical licensesā. I enjoy that.
yeah, that framing allows for hilarious comedy but also itās technically possible to make a case that itās sincerely true.
but yeah, i do think thereās something to the idea that even licenses which donāt advertise themselves as āethicalā carry an ethics with them. the GPL, for example, is explicitly a product of the view that it is unethical for software to be non-Freeā¢.
What I notice is applying an āethical licenseā doesnāt seem to feature the kind of specificity that can help licensees clear up contentious use cases. The rude ambiguity in terms like āevilā by my reckoning enlarges the scope for contention, well confusion anyway. So that leaves us with the final branch, meta-ethics, which you conveniently raise:
To my mind, the opposite of āethicalā isnāt āunethicalā (which would be one personās value judgment of another personās ethics?) but ānon-ethicalāā¦ an objective absence of ethics?
I would like to take the opportunity of suggesting that āEthical Licensingā is driven almost completely by job market signalling. I donāt think other explanations, like āvanityā contribute as much as this. Also, ethical values are axiomatic, meaning whatever is articulated in the license text as disallowed use cases, the irk-to-capital is in assigning one of their less ambitious lawyers to humorlessly micromanage the perceived risk of litigation? ā¦ the famous JSON perhaps being the āgotoā illustration of this heavy-going, unamused treatment by lumbering, skittish institutionsā¦ ohā¦ youāll know of many others thoā?
I have had a good convo with the author of the anti-capitalist license. he admitted to doing a Ctrl H (find and replace) with (from memory) some GPL thing?
My main contention with that license is that it is set up to ALLOW first. This passes a compliance burden on to prospective adopters.
My preference is for a license that places the compliance burden on capitalā¦ so that requires a license that explicity DISALLOWS capitalā¦ by definfing what is ācapitalistā and then being permissive for everyone else, both for capital goods (what you call āintra-corporateā) and consumers goodsā¦ which are like your apps, games and chiz.
i do think thereās something to the idea that even licenses which donāt advertise themselves as āethicalā carry an ethics with them.
Absolutely, I have not yet come across a license that doesnāt import some ethical implications. I find the tendency to argue against a license whose politics we donāt like on the grounds that the author lacks sincerity misses the opportunity for constructive debate. I have no doubt Perens/Devault/Rosen/Raymond et al are all sincere. The problem I have with their work is it extends an intensely unreliable analysis of the political economy:
FOSS is not socialist.
+10
The free software movement is right-libertarian / āanarchoā-capitalist
If it matters anyā¦ I think itās ātechno-utopian liberalismā at itās core? ā¦ and of course has shifted to the right because of the mega-corporate delight in seeking advantage from reducing costs in infrastructure, bundling their own products and so onā¦ the libertarian/anarcho elements I tend to see as more ātechno-utopianāā¦ itās not that all these crypto fanatics are anarchists or libertariansā¦ they havenāt even thought that far yet AFAICTā¦ they are just in thrawl to Stallmanism, decentralization/P2P/fosschain etcā¦ when they leave their parents house they are more than likely to be pro-business IMO.
and the open source movement is neoliberal;
+10