Which is good. And puts both Open Source and Free Software in a less than wholesome light, ethically.
"We don't care what you do with this as long as you reshare/etc" encourages a misleadingly narrow focus within the bigger picture of corporate and professional ethics.
IMO there's no realistic presumption of unquestioned goodness on the part of GPL. If someone wants to create code with a "No evil" license, they're perfectly entitled to apply one. Everyone else has to live with the consequences, just as they have to live with GPL etc.
Certainly, everyone is entitled to use whatever license terms they wish.
I don’t consider that a solution for the ethics problem, though. What’s good and what’s evil is a very grey area. Ambiguous terms don’t make a good license. Most people consider themselves good. Many Facebook engineers consider themselves good, I’d wager. Does that make Facebook good? Russian intelligence officers probably consider themselves good. Does that make their use of JSlint good? Even Nazis considered themselves good. The entire ideology was centered around that narrative. So how can a license using those terms solve the ethics problem?
"We don't care what you do with this as long as you reshare/etc" encourages a misleadingly narrow focus within the bigger picture of corporate and professional ethics.
IMO there's no realistic presumption of unquestioned goodness on the part of GPL. If someone wants to create code with a "No evil" license, they're perfectly entitled to apply one. Everyone else has to live with the consequences, just as they have to live with GPL etc.