Hippocratic License

The Hippocratic License (HL3) is a SJW's wet dream: It explicitly allows the maintainer of a HL3-licensed work to deny rights to those who don't comfort to the globalist, neo-liberal, egalitarian mindset. Prior to this license's advent, SJW's could only kick Rightists out of converged projects; they couldn't stop Rightists from continuing to use or forking open source software and launching their own (new and improved) projects and websites afterwards. Thus, SJW's needed to devise a way to not only deny project participation to Rightists but to also deny open source software to them, a task Coraline Ada Ehmke took upon her own shoulders to fulfill (you might recognize Ehmke as the same person who wrote the Contributor Covenant that's used as the basis of nearly every code of conduct you find on M$ Github and beyond).

Ehmke vs. Hippocrates

Ehmke claims that the license is based on the Hippocratic Oath, yet there are some notable differences between the license and the Oath. The Hippocratic Oath involves searing before a higher power–eternal, timeless, and capable of judging man beyond their earthly existence. The HL3, on the other hand, deems the man-made, fallible, ever-changing United Nations to be the source of all moral norms that the Licensee must adhere to. In addition, adhering to the license is essentially a pact between Licensee and Licensor instead of man and god.

Trojan license strategy

1. Convince naive, moralfag-leaning project lead into adopting the viral variant of the license–the Hippocratic License with the Copyleft module (HL3-CL), the most dangerous variant of the HL3, since it obliges derivative software projects and forks into using the same license.
2. Have your SJW friends infiltrate and converge the project.
3. Launch a coup against the old project lead and replace all the productive developers with virtue-signalling bureaucrats who send their time tweeting and speaking at conventions instead of actually developing.
4. If the old project lead tries to start a new project based on the code they once developed, make legal threats and start a trial-by-media campaign. If trial-by-media doesn't work, sue them and guilt-trip an attorney into working pro bono for you.

Rejected by the sane

The Free Software Foundation roundly rejected the license:

This license is the latest addition to our license list, but unfortunately, it falls in the nonfree category. It restricts uses of the software that actively and knowingly endanger, harm, or otherwise threaten the physical, mental, economic, or general well-being of individuals or groups in violation of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. While avoiding harm like this is of vital importance, a copyright license isn't necessarily the correct tool for achieving it. A restriction like this on Freedom 0 (the freedom to run the program for any purpose) may be difficult to enforce, as well as for users to understand, and may cause unintended consequences that could worsen the same problems it aims to solve.

The FSF previously rejected the HESSLA on similar grounds.

External links

• The license's very own website
• Users of the license; software you should avoid