In the UK at least, you are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of colour, creed or sexual preference.<p>However one must demonstrate that said party has been disadvantaged.<p>For example if you say that women must use red font, and men must use blue. It is arguable that you are choosing a different <i>path</i> for each gender, but not causing more work for either side.<p>in the case of the nonwhite<i>etcetcetc</i> license, you are allowing one group to potentially profit more from derivative works than the other. (one group is allowed to represent the work as their own, potentially allowing greater profits.)<p>However you'll have to prove it, which requires examples, or brilliant lawyers.<p>##Supplemental##<p>My personal feeling is that any discrimination, that is the deliberate act of choosing one type of person over an other, on the grounds of anything other talent for the position in question is wrong.<p>Having been parachuted into a position, not because of talent, but because of social engineering, allowed my peers to legitimately mark me out as not belonging. Ultimately did nothing to tackle the root cause, and possible re-enforced on both sides that someone like me is not meant to be in that position.<p>Social hacks are just that, nasty. tackle the cause not the symptom.