Open Source Licensing Prohibiting Corporations

Software licensing is pretty simple imo: Open Source (FOSS, specifically) is the only ethical way to distribute software.
Property rights are fundamental to human flourishing and conflict avoidance; since ownership is the capacity to exert control over something, then by having users run unknown code you would undermine their ownership in their own hardware. You essentially become an aggressor, initiating a conflict (both in the physical & logical sense).

@Yuzuki
This is a really smart idea. Democratise the technology whilst going after the invaders by using their own system. Good luck if you intend to build this!

@ancap_objectivist
Well put. But surely your argument concerns transparency, not licence? Also, what about closed source code running on private infrastructure, is that unethical?

@Nebuchadnezzar_II Fair point, I neglected to cover licensing specifically. Allow me to expound on it without getting too deep into the weeds:

1. Human will is unalienable, it can't be sold or transferred. Therefore, valid contracts relate only to transfers of property.
2. You cannot own ideas (a sequence of code, in this case), because ownership only makes sense when there is scarcity and ideas are infinitely reproducible.
3. Since contracts may only apply to property, and code may not be owned, then you cannot make a contract to affect a person's use of code; in other words, you cannot license code.

I get most of this from Stephan Kinsella, though I diverge from him on the transparency point.

Regarding running closed-source code on private infrastructure, it's fundamentally the same concept being applied: Someone owns the infrastructure, by running a close-source program on their hardware you would be removing their ability to control it and therefore undermine their property rights.
It occurs to me that someone might counter that you could still start/stop the software, so you maintain control; but if whilst it's running you have to suspend your control -- or cede it to the software maker -- then you don't actually own your hardware. It can't be the case that Bob owns the computer AND Alice owns the computer, because ownership means basically full control.

Sorry for the lengthy post, here's some eye candy for putting up with it:

Mystra from an older D&D book iirc

Just as a thought, what defines a corporation here? You'll have to define the difference between that and legitimate small businesses. Maybe the best option is to set a limit on total revenue, and carefully define that it includes all associated companies, groups, shells, etc, perhaps even all companies by the same people?

What about adapting AGPLv3 to make mandatory open sourcing apply also to entire projects that the software is used within? Large companies rarely want to open source something that makes them a lot of money.

@ancap_objectivist
I understand your claims to concern an idealized contracting environment, and at first I won't dispute them. However should we not take such measures against adversity that we can, since that adversity is in this case harmful to the commons? Not to take a revolutionary stance, but I don't see that harming big tech by targeting contractual liabilities is unjust, even if the contracting environment is unfair. Why be pacifist?

Now to address your idealized contracting environment:
You very accurately pointed out that 'ownership is the capacity to exert control over something.' However, you seem to imply that any contractually owned property must be entirely owned, so that the contractual owner must maintain complete capacity to exert control over something. Maybe this could work as a legal doctrine. But its clearly a terrible organizing principal for human action, especially concerning any sort of mutual cooperation. Taken to the extreme, all things must be immediately destroyed to prevent any conflicting claims of ownership. Maybe I've terribly misunderstood

@Nebuchadnezzar_II I'm not ideological and I'm not a fan of the Monero / Libertarian idealists as they are far removed from reality. When it comes to facing governments and corpos, we are in amoral territory, i.e. there are no morals. There is one rule: The end justifies the means. So we should be ruthlessly pragmatic and take any action that we can to fight them. They sure as shit are doing it to us. All else being equal, when you have to people facing each other, the one without morals has the competitive edge over the one with morals. Reserve morality for those who reciprocate. Governments are inherently immoral and corpos are psychopathic blood sucking vampires. The only way to beat them is by playing by the same rule and not be blinded by ideology. Ideology in this respect accomplishes nothing.

@Nebuchadnezzar_II
The Libertarian & Objectivist ethics that I adopt stands on principle, rather than being consequentialist. Something is correct because it is objectively correct, not because it achieves a (subjectively) good outcome. So, even if I grant you the statement that harming Big Tech is good in itself, that doesn't mean that it is good to abandon principles to achieve that end; because they are principles.

You're implying that pacifism is bad; as compared to what? Aggression? The only alternative I see under a licensing model is undermining property rights (aggression) and logical contradictions.
As an example of contradictions, take the "commons" for example: There is no such thing as joint/communal ownership, everything is either individually owned or completely un-owned (nature).
To use a common example, suppose you and I are on a deserted island and I've found a nice hard stick; I want to use it to stoke my fire, but you want it to spear fish. Both of these things cannot happen at the same time; either I own the stick or you do. It cannot be used to stoke a fire and fish simultaneously. You must then choose who justly deserves the property rights, the first-comer (me in this example) or the late-comer (you), I believe we would agree that the first-comer justly owns the stick.

However, you seem to imply that any contractually owned property must be entirely owned, so that the contractual owner must maintain complete capacity to exert control over something.

Not quite, although I can see how I gave you that impression (my bad). What I'm trying to describe is that to make contracts relating to property (in this case, license out your code) you must first own it. Since you cannot own ideas (code), then you cannot engage in any sort of contracts with it.
Contracts themselves can still grant you cooperation as owners transfer aspects of ownership over to the other party. An example I like for this is toll roads: When you pay to get on a toll road, the owner grants you Usage of the road, but maintains the Ability to exclude you from it or to transfer its ownership. You get cooperation here through contracts.

I suppose I ought to reword "control" to "right to exclude", my bad there.
I don't see how you get to the destruction point though, the fact that conflicts arise over some property doesn't negate the fact that the first-comer is the rightful owner.

@Yuzuki It must be nice to turn off your brain and go "Grog smash grrr"

@Yuzuki
Exactly. The only true idealism is no guns, no money, no tv, but thats never gonna happen so we must enter that arena and fight by the only rule that it respects, survival.

@ancap_objectivist
It seems I was completely wrong about your position. I thought you took ownership to be a reality grounded in power. Given your clarification, it seems you take ownership to be a matter of (somehow objective) inaliable human rights, a paradigm of morality. I think you are arguing that taking legal action against users of your protected code would be intolerable because it violates their inaliable rights. I couldn't argue against that view; its surely a matter of preference. My preference would be instead to consider the wider benefits of protecting open source software against undesirable commercial development.

Whereas I believe in weighing up pros and cons, you seem to require a stricter heirarchy of principals, but I'm sure thats just another matter of preference; if one were truly better than the other someone would've figured it out already!