Ask HN: How to Draft a No Fossil Fuel Clause?

1 points by jereze 2 years ago | 4 comments

I'm working on a clause for my business that would restrict the use of my software by entities that directly or indirectly support or promote fossil fuel usage, and I would love to get some input from HN community on how to draft it effectively.

Here's the draft clause:

“The use of the software is strictly prohibited by any company or entity whose primary or significant activity contributes directly or indirectly to the exploration, production, expansion, or support of fossil fuel resources —explicitly including oil, natural gas, and coal— and related infrastructure.”

A second part could be added to explicit the prohibited activities:

“This includes, but is not limited to, companies engaged in oil and gas exploration, logistical support for fossil fuel extraction, management and operational services for existing fossil fuel production facilities, and initiatives aimed at increasing the output of fossil fuel resources. The prohibition extends to the marketing, promotion, or advertising of such activities, provision of services, technical support, or resources to directly involved entities in the fossil fuel sector, financial organizations funding or investing in related projects or infrastructures. Further, it encompasses entities that consume substantial quantities of fossil fuels and do not exhibit a verifiable commitment to significantly reduce such consumption within an established timeframe.”

The inspiration partly comes from the Climate Strike Software License[1], but I'm aiming for something more encompassing.

I've written more about this on my blog[2], but here, I'm specifically looking for your expertise on the legal and practical aspects of such a clause.

What are your thoughts? How could this be improved?

[1] https://climatestrike.software/

[2] https://jereze.com/blog/no-fossil-fuel-clause/

jjgreen 2 years ago |

a) Don't ask for legal advice on HN, hire a IP lawyer

b) Just "No-one is allowed to use this software" would be cheaper and have the same effect.

h2odragon 2 years ago |

tho I have nothing to do with those industries; i would not use your sftware if you had such restrictions. No telling when you'll take offense to the industry i am in.

I think you'd probably do better to license the software individually to users that meet your standards. Sell it for cheap or even free if you like. if someone is so unethical as to participate in these industries or activities you dislike; why would you trust them to honor your license restrictions?

jereze 2 years ago | |

I appreciate your perspective, and you bring up a valid point about the potential for the clause to alienate users.

Could be more manageable:

* Implementing a broad clause that reserves me the right to decline clients.

* Setting standard pricing for the general market.

* Offering discounted licenses to entities that I choose/like.

This tiered approach might be easier even though I was hopping for another route. It lacks of transparency compared to a public clause.

Thank you for contributing to the discussion.

h2odragon 2 years ago | | |

I think this approach has advantages. Not least is it fits into what others have done, you won't have to spend time explaining how your licensing is different and so on.

Many companies offer discounted or free licenses to organizations as a form of support. Very vanilla, well understood.

The legal right to say "I cannot serve you as a customer because of moral / ethical conflicts" is being argued still in the USA but seems to still be fairly well understood.