Read on Twitter
. @jeremykboggs & I blogged an abstract we submitted for a collection—it wasn't accepted, but we're going to do the work it discusses anyway, and seek publication elsewhere https://scholarslab.lib.virginia.edu/blog/software-licenses-feminist-queer-digital-humanities-practice/
"Software licensing as feminist & queer digital humanities practice": Choices re:software licenses impact the intellectual life of code-including digital humanist scholarship. @jeremykboggs+I are researching+debating licensing for future @ScholarsLab code: https://scholarslab.lib.virginia.edu/blog/software-licenses-feminist-queer-digital-humanities-practice/
We're interested in both feminist+queer features of software licenses, and feminist+queer critiques of these. Will document our experience pursuing a better licensing policy eg negotiations w/institutional stakeholders, reasoning, plans for iterating on this policy over time
We've wanted to better attend @ScholarsLab license choices for a while, but jumpstarted by 3 events last year: @sarahmei's thread ( https://twitter.com/sarahmei/status/1172285551434579968) on Stallman’s harm to the Free Software Foundation community + to associated copyleft licenses + their user communities
Stallman’s subsequent resignation from FSF roles (president+board of directors member); and
@CoralineAda's creation of the “Hippocratic License” ( https://firstdonoharm.dev/ ), “a modified MIT license that specifically prohibits the use of open source software to harm others”.
@CoralineAda's creation of the “Hippocratic License” ( https://firstdonoharm.dev/ ), “a modified MIT license that specifically prohibits the use of open source software to harm others”.
