As a counterpoint, here's another article I read today that's opposed to this specific license, but also discusses how the entire concept doesn't make much sense and is unenforceable anyway: You...
As a counterpoint, here's another article I read today that's opposed to this specific license, but also discusses how the entire concept doesn't make much sense and is unenforceable anyway: You can't open-source license morality
I understand what people are trying to do, but I don't think trying to shoehorn it into the license will work.
I don't agree with the general premise of arguments that begin like: To me, that misses the point entirely. Just because something is difficult doesn't mean you shouldn't do it and just because a...
I don't agree with the general premise of arguments that begin like:
in practicality, it won't work, so you shouldn't do it
To me, that misses the point entirely. Just because something is difficult doesn't mean you shouldn't do it and just because a rule is unenforceable doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.
You create the rule or do the thing because you want to make a statement to the world. You're letting the world know what's right and wrong because that's the only way we get to the next step.
You know who else was told "it won't work?" every revolution ever. Every civil rights movement. Every person who took a stand against an institution.
There's a pretty large difference between the concepts of "difficult" and "literally impossible". At the end of the day, once you've released something in a way that actually complies with the...
There's a pretty large difference between the concepts of "difficult" and "literally impossible".
At the end of the day, once you've released something in a way that actually complies with the principles of free software (including freedom zero, which all of these "morality clauses" directly abrogate), you've given up the level of control you need to do any kind of enforcement anyways.
Basically, free software and "thou shalt not use this for a vaguely defined list of purposes" are at fundamental odds with one another. If you're more interested in restricting what people do with your code, fine, that's a valid stance to take - but don't call it free software.
To be fair, I don't actually see anyone calling this license "Free Software" aka FSF approved. The author also proposes amending the OSI definition of Open Source (tm), so they're clearly aware...
Basically, free software and "thou shalt not use this for a vaguely defined list of purposes" are at fundamental odds with one another. If you're more interested in restricting what people do with your code, fine, that's a valid stance to take - but don't call it free software.
To be fair, I don't actually see anyone calling this license "Free Software" aka FSF approved. The author also proposes amending the OSI definition of Open Source (tm), so they're clearly aware that it doesn't fall into that classification of licenses either.
I think people who made this license have no idea why licenses exists. This license sounds like a harry potter spell, as if the point about being ethical is in any way enforceable or binding....
I think people who made this license have no idea why licenses exists. This license sounds like a harry potter spell, as if the point about being ethical is in any way enforceable or binding. Breaking the UN rules is a crime in itself, so what is the reason fo its inclusion?
It's another sugarcoating bullshit for people to feel warm fuzzies inside when they attach this license to a project they maintain. No harm done at least, but I don't like when emotional writing gets into legal texts that supposed to have very strict definitions.
I mean, in some countries this license may even be rejected altogether, based on the fact that the ethics clause is unenforceable, therefore a selective enforcement of a license may not be possible, hence making the whole license a void.
EDIT: For some reason Deimos removed my own contribution to this new style of licensing, so I'm posting the link here - it is my new software license, meant to prevent the developers from feeling bad for their code being used by bad people. Please feel free to include wfl in your open source projects.
Are we gatekeeping licenses now? Why are so many people opposed to the idea of using unconventional means to draw attention to problems or to get things done? This seems like an exceptionally...
Are we gatekeeping licenses now?
Why are so many people opposed to the idea of using unconventional means to draw attention to problems or to get things done?
This seems like an exceptionally pedantic thing to get up in arms about.
I can't possibly gatekeep something that wouldn't even fit through it. This is bad, because it's an attempt to inject uncertain terms and emotional language into what should be in any other way a...
I can't possibly gatekeep something that wouldn't even fit through it.
This is bad, because it's an attempt to inject uncertain terms and emotional language into what should be in any other way a legally enforceable and serious document meant to protect the author, their property and copyright from infringement.
If free software is free speech, could software be made as a statement? I know the license is not sustainable, but what is the harm if people used it in protest?
If free software is free speech, could software be made as a statement? I know the license is not sustainable, but what is the harm if people used it in protest?
Well first things first - the author has stated on that website that the aim of their activism is to amend the very definition of open source software, and that puts me at a disagreement. I can't...
Well first things first - the author has stated on that website that the aim of their activism is to amend the very definition of open source software, and that puts me at a disagreement.
I can't make this license go away now when it's been published, and nor would I want to. I am, however, would criticize it to the best of my ability, and right now I am using my free speech and my statements to combat theirs. I have never mentioned that this license should be taken down.
The harm here is the confusion it introduces into the license world, because this license is unenforceable, making it inclusion in any software a very dubious practice.
Which uncertain terms do you specifically have an issue with? They cite a very specific piece of international legislation as the bedrock for their condition. If it is found that they are in...
This is bad, because it's an attempt to inject uncertain terms and emotional language into what should be in any other way a legally enforceable and serious document meant to protect the author, their property and copyright from infringement.
Which uncertain terms do you specifically have an issue with? They cite a very specific piece of international legislation as the bedrock for their condition.
If it is found that they are in violation of these clauses, they can be taken to court and forced to stop using/modifying/selling said software.
Let's dissect this. Endanger economic or general well-being of individuals or groups. So now any competitor to the corporation that produced that piece of software can't use it to compete with the...
Let's dissect this.
The software may not be used by individuals, corporations, governments, or other groups for systems or activities that actively and knowingly endanger, harm, or otherwise threaten the physical, mental, economic, or general well-being of individuals or groups in violation of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Endanger economic or general well-being of individuals or groups. So now any competitor to the corporation that produced that piece of software can't use it to compete with the said corporation, because competing with the original corporation would threaten the well being of a group "this corporation employees" by endangering their income by competition? Economical threat is pretty much a wet dream of a corporation.
Next, we have the uncertainty of what justifies a valid pre-meditated threat to mental health. For example, take any smart algorithm for recommending any media. It's only smart enough to see what someone likes and pick other media that is similar. This is the single purpose of that software - and I even describe it as a "software that finds a similar media for you". But I know full well that by recommending depressing content to a suicidal person may affect their mental health. However, this person opts in to use the software, just like any other user. To avoid violation the license, should I implement special cases for all such cases and actually break my promise of a recommendation of a similar media? Or do I get to hand wave it because I have the description in place about only working a certain way?
And what the court would tell me if a lawsuit would happen? Right now I get to relive myself from any responsibility by providing my code for free and not guaranteeing anything, but this in theory changes that.
Finally, violation of the UN chapter is a crime of its own. The inclusion of this line is redundant, since a crime is committed either way, and I doubt countries not enforcing human rights would enforce this license.
I've only described one potential subjective conflict, but there are countless scenarios where these things would not have a clear cut answer.
Nope. That's competition. It's common in a capitalist society, and is not endangering anyone's "economic or general well-being" unless some company decided to poison some other company's water...
Endanger economic or general well-being of individuals or groups. So now any competitor to the corporation that produced that piece of software can't use it to compete with the said corporation
Nope. That's competition. It's common in a capitalist society, and is not endangering anyone's "economic or general well-being" unless some company decided to poison some other company's water supply.
Next, we have the uncertainty of what justifies a valid pre-meditated threat to mental health. For example, take any smart algorithm for recommending any media. It's only smart enough to see what someone likes and pick other media that is similar. This is the single purpose of that software - and I even describe it as a "software that finds a similar media for you". But I know full well that by recommending depressing content to a suicidal person may affect their mental health.
Are you actively categorizing people as "suicidal" vs. "not suicidal"? No? Then you're not committing a pre-meditated threat to mental health. Yes? Then yes, you need to take steps to ensure that your recommendation engine doesn't push people to suicide by knowingly suggesting depressing content to someone who is suicidal.
And what the court would tell me if a lawsuit would happen? Right now I get to relive myself from any responsibility by providing my code for free and not guaranteeing anything, but this in theory changes that.
I'm sorry, I think I missed where your code taking in an "isSuicidal" variable somehow absolved you of the moral outcome of your code...
Finally, violation of the UN chapter is a crime of its own. The inclusion of this line is redundant, since a crime is committed either way, and I doubt countries not enforcing human rights would enforce this license.
Tell me, when did the UN last convict people for violations of the UN chapter? It seems like this provides a viable way for people who suspect that something like this might be happening to gather their evidence and take said organization to court based not only on the UN violations, but software violations as well.
I've only described one potential subjective conflict, but there are countless scenarios where these things would not have a clear cut answer.
I mean, you technically provided 3, but sure, that's where the court system comes in.
You just sent the MIT license through an uwu-ficator didn't you. EDIT: Deimos probably removed it cause it's obviously a sarcastic mockery of the "other side" in this debate, i.e the people saying...
You just sent the MIT license through an uwu-ficator didn't you.
EDIT: Deimos probably removed it cause it's obviously a sarcastic mockery of the "other side" in this debate, i.e the people saying that authors should be able to limit how their open source software is used.
Not quite, I also added a clause about caring about the environment and reserved the author's right to feel virtuous as a result of including the license. You can take it as mockery, but in every...
Not quite, I also added a clause about caring about the environment and reserved the author's right to feel virtuous as a result of including the license. You can take it as mockery, but in every possible way it's at lest as valid as the Hippocratic license
I am not pretending I'm not basing my new license on the Hippocratic license, I'm just showing off the the blatant flaws in logic by cranking it up to eleven - that's not mockery, it's satire. And...
Let's stop pretending
I am not pretending I'm not basing my new license on the Hippocratic license, I'm just showing off the the blatant flaws in logic by cranking it up to eleven - that's not mockery, it's satire. And if you disregard my intention as a person in this thread - this license is just as enforceable as the one from this thread, and anyone can still release software under it. I may even make a prettier landing page and non-uwu version soon.
That's not what I said, and you know it. You're now cutting off the end of my comment in order to troll. We're done here. No further discussion can be had with someone who claims they have another...
I am not pretending I'm not basing my new license on the Hippocratic license
That's not what I said, and you know it. You're now cutting off the end of my comment in order to troll.
We're done here. No further discussion can be had with someone who claims they have another reason other than mockery to create such a thing, then take someone else's words out of context in order to "dunk" on them.
I firmly believe that such restrictions make a license not open source, but that doesn't have to be a bad thing. As for whether this is enforceable or not, is it all that different from licenses...
I firmly believe that such restrictions make a license not open source, but that doesn't have to be a bad thing. As for whether this is enforceable or not, is it all that different from licenses that don't allow commercial use? Those aren't easily enforceable either, but they aren't useless.
As a counterpoint, here's another article I read today that's opposed to this specific license, but also discusses how the entire concept doesn't make much sense and is unenforceable anyway: You can't open-source license morality
I understand what people are trying to do, but I don't think trying to shoehorn it into the license will work.
I don't agree with the general premise of arguments that begin like:
To me, that misses the point entirely. Just because something is difficult doesn't mean you shouldn't do it and just because a rule is unenforceable doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.
You create the rule or do the thing because you want to make a statement to the world. You're letting the world know what's right and wrong because that's the only way we get to the next step.
You know who else was told "it won't work?" every revolution ever. Every civil rights movement. Every person who took a stand against an institution.
There's a pretty large difference between the concepts of "difficult" and "literally impossible".
At the end of the day, once you've released something in a way that actually complies with the principles of free software (including freedom zero, which all of these "morality clauses" directly abrogate), you've given up the level of control you need to do any kind of enforcement anyways.
Basically, free software and "thou shalt not use this for a vaguely defined list of purposes" are at fundamental odds with one another. If you're more interested in restricting what people do with your code, fine, that's a valid stance to take - but don't call it free software.
To be fair, I don't actually see anyone calling this license "Free Software" aka FSF approved. The author also proposes amending the OSI definition of Open Source (tm), so they're clearly aware that it doesn't fall into that classification of licenses either.
I think people who made this license have no idea why licenses exists. This license sounds like a harry potter spell, as if the point about being ethical is in any way enforceable or binding. Breaking the UN rules is a crime in itself, so what is the reason fo its inclusion?
It's another sugarcoating bullshit for people to feel warm fuzzies inside when they attach this license to a project they maintain. No harm done at least, but I don't like when emotional writing gets into legal texts that supposed to have very strict definitions.
I mean, in some countries this license may even be rejected altogether, based on the fact that the ethics clause is unenforceable, therefore a selective enforcement of a license may not be possible, hence making the whole license a void.
EDIT: For some reason Deimos removed my own contribution to this new style of licensing, so I'm posting the link here - it is my new software license, meant to prevent the developers from feeling bad for their code being used by bad people. Please feel free to include wfl in your open source projects.
Because gathering attention and stirring conversation is what the license supposed to do, right?
Are we gatekeeping licenses now?
Why are so many people opposed to the idea of using unconventional means to draw attention to problems or to get things done?
This seems like an exceptionally pedantic thing to get up in arms about.
I can't possibly gatekeep something that wouldn't even fit through it.
This is bad, because it's an attempt to inject uncertain terms and emotional language into what should be in any other way a legally enforceable and serious document meant to protect the author, their property and copyright from infringement.
If free software is free speech, could software be made as a statement? I know the license is not sustainable, but what is the harm if people used it in protest?
Well first things first - the author has stated on that website that the aim of their activism is to amend the very definition of open source software, and that puts me at a disagreement.
I can't make this license go away now when it's been published, and nor would I want to. I am, however, would criticize it to the best of my ability, and right now I am using my free speech and my statements to combat theirs. I have never mentioned that this license should be taken down.
The harm here is the confusion it introduces into the license world, because this license is unenforceable, making it inclusion in any software a very dubious practice.
Which, up until now, has been "I don't like it, so I'll claim the person has no idea what they're doing and mock it relentlessly".
Which uncertain terms do you specifically have an issue with? They cite a very specific piece of international legislation as the bedrock for their condition.
If it is found that they are in violation of these clauses, they can be taken to court and forced to stop using/modifying/selling said software.
Let's dissect this.
Endanger economic or general well-being of individuals or groups. So now any competitor to the corporation that produced that piece of software can't use it to compete with the said corporation, because competing with the original corporation would threaten the well being of a group "this corporation employees" by endangering their income by competition? Economical threat is pretty much a wet dream of a corporation.
Next, we have the uncertainty of what justifies a valid pre-meditated threat to mental health. For example, take any smart algorithm for recommending any media. It's only smart enough to see what someone likes and pick other media that is similar. This is the single purpose of that software - and I even describe it as a "software that finds a similar media for you". But I know full well that by recommending depressing content to a suicidal person may affect their mental health. However, this person opts in to use the software, just like any other user. To avoid violation the license, should I implement special cases for all such cases and actually break my promise of a recommendation of a similar media? Or do I get to hand wave it because I have the description in place about only working a certain way?
And what the court would tell me if a lawsuit would happen? Right now I get to relive myself from any responsibility by providing my code for free and not guaranteeing anything, but this in theory changes that.
Finally, violation of the UN chapter is a crime of its own. The inclusion of this line is redundant, since a crime is committed either way, and I doubt countries not enforcing human rights would enforce this license.
I've only described one potential subjective conflict, but there are countless scenarios where these things would not have a clear cut answer.
Nope. That's competition. It's common in a capitalist society, and is not endangering anyone's "economic or general well-being" unless some company decided to poison some other company's water supply.
Are you actively categorizing people as "suicidal" vs. "not suicidal"? No? Then you're not committing a pre-meditated threat to mental health. Yes? Then yes, you need to take steps to ensure that your recommendation engine doesn't push people to suicide by knowingly suggesting depressing content to someone who is suicidal.
I'm sorry, I think I missed where your code taking in an "isSuicidal" variable somehow absolved you of the moral outcome of your code...
Tell me, when did the UN last convict people for violations of the UN chapter? It seems like this provides a viable way for people who suspect that something like this might be happening to gather their evidence and take said organization to court based not only on the UN violations, but software violations as well.
I mean, you technically provided 3, but sure, that's where the court system comes in.
Whew lad, that went from 0-malice real quick.
You just sent the MIT license through an uwu-ficator didn't you.
EDIT: Deimos probably removed it cause it's obviously a sarcastic mockery of the "other side" in this debate, i.e the people saying that authors should be able to limit how their open source software is used.
Not quite, I also added a clause about caring about the environment and reserved the author's right to feel virtuous as a result of including the license. You can take it as mockery, but in every possible way it's at lest as valid as the Hippocratic license
You can say something is not valid without mocking it by making a babytalk equivalent. It's more productive that way, anyway.
A furrytalk, if you plеаse! It's just to make the reader feel warmer inside.
Let's stop pretending you did it with any other purpose than mockery. It's insulting to the intelligence of people here that you claim otherwise.
I am not pretending I'm not basing my new license on the Hippocratic license, I'm just showing off the the blatant flaws in logic by cranking it up to eleven - that's not mockery, it's satire. And if you disregard my intention as a person in this thread - this license is just as enforceable as the one from this thread, and anyone can still release software under it. I may even make a prettier landing page and non-uwu version soon.
That's not what I said, and you know it. You're now cutting off the end of my comment in order to troll.
We're done here. No further discussion can be had with someone who claims they have another reason other than mockery to create such a thing, then take someone else's words out of context in order to "dunk" on them.
I firmly believe that such restrictions make a license not open source, but that doesn't have to be a bad thing. As for whether this is enforceable or not, is it all that different from licenses that don't allow commercial use? Those aren't easily enforceable either, but they aren't useless.