Of course it's not open source but they're still trying to weasel it in.
Great, guess my source(s?) is unethical from now on. And I’m okay with that.
Btw, checked out who’re in the working group. Not at all surprised to see familiar handles who are at least as toxic as esr.
> It can be freely used or combined with other software.
This seems to prohibit Copyleft.
> The source code is available, developed, and maintained in public view and welcoming of public contributions.
I have no real objections here.
> Its community of contributors is governed by a code of conduct that is consistently and fairly enforced.
They'd probably object to the following Code of Conduct: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." But it would work.
> It is distributed under a license that prohibits the software from being used by any individual or organization which directly or indirectly facilitates, encourages, manipulates, coerces, or forces people to engage in behaviors that are in opposition to a specified framework of social good, provided that the framework does not conflict with the rights enumerated in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
That prohibits pretty much all existing OSI licenses. But again you could just have the Thelema framework from above.
> Creators have the right to solicit reasonable compensation from any commercial entity that benefits from the software.
That's meaningless. You can send all the strongly worded letters you wish.
> Users of the software must, upon request, be provided with any and all data generated and stored from their usage of the software in either a human-readable or widely interoperable open format.
I don't object to this in principle, but there isn't always a "widely interoperable open format" for every data type. Nor is there any universal "human readable" format. You could technically comply by simply converting the output to hex, since it's "human readable". Maybe do it in Japanese, transliterated in EBCDIC for the hell of it.
It's not even well phrased enough to be a wishlist!
I am not sure how that would work. Point 5, "Creators have the right to solicit reasonable compensation from any commercial entity that benefits from the software" alone is a huge mess. What does solicit means? Or benefit? Can the commercial entity just answer "thanks for trying, but no"?
Quoting the movie Trolls, "that's not a plan, that's a wishlist".