Here are some expected arguments which might be attempted as justification to reject the Vaccine License. We will add to this page as more arguments are made.
Argument: The Vaccine License does not benefit the Open Source Community sufficiently to be adopted as an Open Source License.
Refutation: By improving the physical health of members of the Open Source Community, since it requires that those members get their shots, the Vaccine License is of greater benefit to the community than any other license that simply governs the use, distribution, and modification of software.
Refutation: The text of Article 5 is
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
Since any person or group, without exception, may receive a vaccine which is medically appropriate for them, the Vaccine License does not discriminate against any person or group. So-called “anti-vaxxers” identify themselves by their misguided rejection of vaccines, but such rejection is an action rather than membership in a group.
Argument: The Vaccine License Violates Article 6 of the Open Source Definition, “No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor”
Refutation: The text of Article 6 is
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
The Vaccine License does not include terms discriminating against any field of endeavor. It only places a requirement upon Complying Legal Entities that, to the greatest extent legally possible, they perform that field of endeavor using Complying Persons as their employees. There is an exception in the Vaccine License if such an action is prohibited by the locality’s law.