In this article, the #OpenSource Initiative has stated that "restricting access to open source distribution could be an effective means of protest" of the war in #Ukraine and that it is a "fine distinction" to make.
I strongly disagree for two primary reasons.
(1/3)
https://thenewstack.io/where-does-open-source-fit-into-russias-war-with-ukraine/
The #OpenSource Definition rule 1 requires "Free Redistribution" of software released under its approved licenses, and that that general license granted to everyone "shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software".
(2/3)
@downey Free redistribution does not imply forced redistribution. You are free to redistribute to whomever you want, and not redistribute to whomever you don't want.
@namark You may want to review https://opensource.org/osd-annotated. Until this article, OSI's stance was that #OpenSource did in fact mean that you can't pick and choose to whom the software is distributed based on their country of residence.
@downey The license may not restrict you from redistributing to whomever you want, that does not mean that the license forces you to redistribute to whoever asks.
@namark This is wrong.
@colinsmatt11 Discriminate while distributing? What does that mean? Distributing is providing a copy. Once you provided a copy you provided a copy. You can pick and choose who you provide copies to as much as you want. You are free to provide copies to anyone, but you are not obligated to provide copies to everyone.
@colinsmatt11 OP claimed that the rule 1 in the definition of open source software they linked to, places such obligations on you, completely misinterpreting it.
