New License Forbids Human Rights Violations? 444
KjetilK writes "A new license published by Hacktivismo, builds on Free Software licenses but adds clauses to "promote fundamental human rights of end-users". For those deeply involved in politics, this is a good idea, but Free Software Licenses have traditionally placed no restrictions on use." There's a news article about this as well.
Amensty (Score:2)
Perfect (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Perfect (Score:5, Insightful)
Open source has always been about bringing people together, regardless of their political viewpoints, in order to give others open, free, and high quality software.
The last thing open source needs is divisive political themes attached to products. "Use this only if you support homosexual marriages" ..."Only members of the NRA are allowed to contribute to this product"..."This product can only be used to promote the views expressed by Amnesty International."
Some things should be political, open source is not one of them.
mod parent up! (Score:4, Insightful)
A ridiculous precedent.
Re:Perfect (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Perfect (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Perfect (Score:5, Insightful)
Free Software is by its very nature political. Everything is political. Your choosing to use your particular operating system has a political dimension, as does your choice of workplace, the food you eat, the clothes you wear. The sooner people realise this, and stop thinking politics is all about corrupt white men in government, or single issues, the better.
The more political hackers can become, the better IMO. If every hacker refused to get political we might as well just invite a few corporations to put great big padlocks on our doors and wipe our hard drives of anything that isn't certified by the Big Bill.
Re:Perfect (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Perfect (Score:4, Insightful)
Everything is NOT fucking political. What I choose to eat for breakfast is absolutely 1000% unpolitical. If you disagree, kindly point out the political considerations in my choosing tasty wheat this morning. Point out the politics of my choosing a left sock and a right sock to wear.
Actually, everything *is* political. Every decision you make has political ramifications, even if they're subtle. If your bowl of tasty wheat was produced by a corporation that pours industrial waste into the river, or uses vast amounts of political contributions to corrupt legislators into ignoring its illegal accounting practices, then you implicitly support those actions. If those socks are made by an international conglomerate that has moved its corporate headquarters to the Seychelles to avoid paying corporate income taxes, and shipped all of its manufacturing to third-world sweatshops, putting 30,000 people out of work, then you implicitly support them. If you eat fast food, you support the conditions of the factory farms that grow their beef. And so on.
Everything you buy, and, to a lesser extent, everything you do, has an effect on the rest of society and the rest of the world. You make your decisions based on what your conscience tells you is right or wrong. I don't buy products made in China, because I don't want to support a totalitarian government. I don't buy from Amazon or Walmart - I'd rather support independent local businesses. As an American, I buy American-made products whenever possible.
Yes, this is hard to do. Sometimes it's impossible, since 90% of consumer products seem to be made in China these days. You can't have a phone, drive a car, or use electricity without supporting massive, anticompetitive corporations. But small things make a difference. If everyone made the same choices, the world might change for the better.
I don't expect everyone else to agree, or to come to the same philosophical decisions. I would, however, like more people to think about their decisions and consider their implications. Maybe it seems silly. Maybe one individual decision is too small to make any difference. But it lets me sleep better at night, and that's the point.
(OTPersonalRant: There's no such thing as 1000% of anything. You can't give 110%. Please don't do this anymore. Thank you.)
You're all wrong. (Score:3, Insightful)
Eating Tasty Wheat because General Mills (or whoever) supports gay rights (hypothetically) is a political decision.
Eating Tasty Wheat because it tastes good is apolitical. Not everyone, not hardly anyone, bases many of their decisions on the political implications of those decsions.
For instance, supporting the Taliban. Afghans may have supported the Taliban, but it may not have been a political decision. It may have been a life or death decision. i.e. We'll kill you if you don't vote our way, etc.
So, not every decision you make has political ramifications. Especially if you don't buy into the politics. If I buy Tasty Wheat from X Cereal company, and X cereal company dumps industrial waste into the river, but I don't give a shit about it, my decision is NOT based upon politics, it's based on taste buds.
The only thing that makes something political is a politician, whether professional, like a senator, or amateur, like yourself.
Re:Perfect (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm going to give you the same answer I give to people who complain that the GPL is viral: "If you don't like the license, write your own damn code."
If I, as a software author, want to release software that can only be used by one-legged people, that's my right. Cuts down my potential audience quite a bit, but hey.
Some things should be political, open source is not one of them.
Would you try to argue that Free Software [gnu.org] is non-political?
Re:Perfect (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Perfect (Score:5, Insightful)
Because this would always occur:
American: Alright sir, here's yo go, remember, you need to promote human rights to use this product.
European: Right, we Europeans are very much in favor of human rights.
American: No no, you have to use *our* definition of human rights...you know...the right definition.
European: Wait, I thought we were using the European definition. Because, well, you Americans don't know the first thing about human rights...you still have executions. Our definition of human rights is correct.
American: Hah, nice try, Mr.-Restricts-More-Forms-Of-Free-Speech...America is right.
Poltical, partisan, and moral viewpoints are best left to news organizations, forums, and the like. Finding open source products to meet your needs should never involve you having to think, "Now, if I use this open source filter to block certain internet sites from my 20 year old son...is that violation of human rights or not?"
P.S. I hope my addition to your quote was correct, I tried to appropriately clarify what was conveyed in the previous article.
Re:Perfect (Score:5, Insightful)
"Yes, sir, but we've encountered a problem. If we go through with this, it will invalidate our software licenses."
"Oh, really. I guess we'll have to reconsider this course of action, then."
I'm a fifth level Vegan (Score:4, Funny)
My friend is a third level vegan. She won't eat anything with eyes, so potatoes are out.
Re: Licenseousness (Score:5, Insightful)
It was free except for "Military" use. He didn't really define Military (apparently he let soldiers use it on their personal computer). Back then I raised the same objections discussed here. But there is nothing new under the sun.
Technically the definitions given back then would mean it would have been perfectly fine for Al Queda or Hamas or any other Terrorist group to use the software because they weren't "military".
(Not that our government and people are any better - we stretch things so that we can label some "Prisoners of war" and others "Enemy Combatant" depending on which is the most useful, and most people seem to agree).
The originator of this new site appears to be some kind of anarchist, which is fine. At least it seems his heart is in the right place.
Even his declaration allows governments to forbid publishing "State Secrets" and "Child Pornography". But that doesn't define "child", or take on the issue of virtual child porn, or state secrets like "we've committed genocide", or who has been arrested under what charge. Who decides who qualifies as a critic, intellectual, artist, or religious figure?
There are fora for vigorous debate on such issues and methods where even the laws can be changed. Software licenses are not such.
In a different venue, but along the same lines, I asked someone about what they actually DID that wasn't merely symbolic to promote their views. I contribute regularly to politicians and organizations that fight for my freedom. It is harder to send a percentage of your income than it is to write a whiny rant and attach it as a license.
If you go to Richard Stallman's webpage, you will find many very strong political views. Many of those are in diametric opposition to my views, others I agree with.
For all his strong views on these positions, he didn't contaminate the GPL with them, and I have followed by not encumbering my licenses.
This follows from the Golden rule. The corollary in question is "Never give or allow a power that you wouldn't also give to your worst enemy and your most disagreeable political opponent".
Keeping the licenses simple and directed at their proper issues is the best thing to do. Otherwise we will need a liberal.sourceforge.net, conservative.sourceforge.net, marxist.sourceforge.net, libertarian.sourceforge.net, and others simply to support forks of projects with different political limitations.
It will be a dark day if this ever happens.
Like most other EULA's to end users.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Cute, but utterly pointless. A Gold star for thought, but not for effort.
If these folks want to make a difference, adding such a clause is merely a self-congradulatory measure that allows the Hactivismo folks to pretend like they're making a difference- when they're not.
May I suggest the Peace Corps if you really want to do something?
RIFP! (Score:5, Interesting)
Ransom It For Peace!
#1. Develop a good piece of software.
#2. Put a ransom [theoretic.com] on it.
#3. Once enough money has been donated to set your software free -- you open-source it!
#4. You give all the money from the ransom to the peace corps.
The nice thing about this system is I could pay for a piece of software I like, while donating to a cause I feel strongly about, and still get the source! It is a win, win, win setup!
Re:RIFP! (Score:5, Insightful)
#6 Profit!!!
Just kidding. Seriously, you have a great idea, metacosm.
This license is a joke. First off, how can you include such a vague term as "violations of human rights" in a legal agreement in the first place without including pages and pages that define it... you can find someone somewhere that will argue anything is a violation of human rights (capitalism for one, and it's not hard to find people who will argue that).
Like the parent poster's, this is just more handwaving by people in an attempt to look like they care, but without any real action to back it up, it just looks like hypocrisy. It's kind of like all the useless legislation that gets passed not to fix a problem, but so that to the less-informed, the politicians LOOK like they are doing something.
Just more babble in a world that has too much babble and not enough deeds. Something as simple as helping out at the local food bank can make a difference. This is something I do that's easy and fun and you actually get to see the people you are helping (something that almost never happens in my career).
"Think globally, act locally." is a good philosophy in my mind, because that's the only way most of us can make a difference. This is much better than some stupid, if well-meant, misplaced manifesto in a software license.
I'd like to hear about more "hypercites". People who do lots of good, but don't go around making a big deal about it.
Re:Like most other EULA's to end users.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I considered writing this as an Anonymous Coward, but I'm too proud of the unpaid time I spent building a network for a local Housing Authority, and the time I spent volunteering building housing with Americorps and feeding people in soup kitchens to hide behind a philosophy of "everything should be free because I don't want to pay for it and rich guys made it and they have too much money!!!!"
There are so many people out there who don't even know how to help themselves... please, Slashdot folk, give where you're willing and able. If it means writing a free piece of software where you're able to, or filling a plate at a soup kitchen, or donating a freakin' ThinkGeek sweatshirt you've outgrown to a shelter... man, come on... the world is a big, big place. Do your part other than complaining. "Human Rights" clauses in EULAs don't do jack shit for Joe Jobless who can't feed his family.
And "Human Rights" clauses in EULAs don't do jack shit for the man standing in front of a tank for free speech (see Tienneman Square, which some of us are old enough to remember). Vote, and don't forget who and what you're voting for.
Not that 98% will listen and understand, but hey, okay, I'm gonna step off the soapbox now.
Re:Like most other EULA's to end users.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think this should have been rated "Funny" but rather Insightful!
I have ALOT of problems with Hactivismo's license, not the least of which is it's impracticality. Good example - who defines whether you're violating someone's human rights? Human rights is a HUGE political football. The US claims the Iraqis violate human rights (gassing your own people for instance) and the Iraqis claim we're violating their human rights by insisting on inspections. That is just one example - I could go on for HOURS.
The poster I'm replying to made a very significant statement, along the lines of contribute where you can how you can. That is a reasonable way to live your life - and contributes to observing the golden rule in my mind.
As for how this should apply to Open/Free software, well if you are good enough to code somthing that others will use and donate it to the public good via an OSS or Free license. GREAT! At the same time we need to stay practical and get rid of the stary-eyed nonsense that the Hactivismo concept embodies.
Re:Like most other EULA's to end users.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh dear.
I clicked on a funny button that said I shouldn't.
Well, OK then, since that would be violating the EULA, I will just give him a wee smack on the wristie then.
Americans just don't get it, do they. One would almost think they thought that anybody gave a shit about their laws. Or any law for that matter...
So skip the EULA and do something real for a change. Something that involved money and how you spend it.
Re:Like most other EULA's to end users.... (Score:3, Insightful)
If we want to emancipate and liberate, we need to support build basic infrastructure (including network architecture). We need to ensure freedom of information and human need supply lines to the people, not just the priviledged few...
AI doinations (Score:3, Interesting)
I think this is a better approach, and unless you are going to try to sue the Chinese (or N. Korean, Israeli, or Saudi) gov't, what is the point? And even if you do, you will probably lose.
It would be far better to say "If you like this software, please consider donating to Amnesti International-- its initials are AI, and it is an organization working for the betterment of all."
Too vague? (Score:5, Interesting)
Nice theory, unworkable practice. (Score:3, Insightful)
Good intentions, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good intentions, but... (Score:2)
Re:Good intentions, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good intentions, but... (Score:2)
Re:Good intentions, but... (Score:2, Flamebait)
Oh boy, you are SO right...
"Amnesty International's vision is of a world in which every person enjoys all of the human
rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human
rights standards. Our mission is to undertake research and action focused on preventing and
ending grave abuses of the rights to physical and mental integrity, freedom of conscience and
expression, and freedom from discrimination, within the context of our work to promote all
human rights."
Complete BASTARDS, aren't they?!
going to use this SOFTWARE LICENSE, to exploit the third world.
Re:Good intentions, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's good that they say all the right things, but it isn't enough.
Re:Good intentions, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, but is that statement still true if you remove the word "western?"
For example, AI's main complaint about the US is that we still use capital punishment. We execute the most people out of all "western" countries (that's what, 12 or 13 countries?). Does that mean we execute the most people worldwide? Hell no. Countries with 5% of our population annually execute more than twice as many people as the US. Even AI has to grudgingly admit that standards in the US are vastly superior than most of the planet.
If you want to harp on the US human rights record, go ahead. Just know that your US-centric world view turns a blind eye to the true atrocities.
Re:Good intentions, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
To make it on Death Row you have to kill one or more people violently and without remorse or reason or do some serious raping and assulting.
Yes the US still uses Captial Punishment, in a way it is more humane than leaving someone in prison for life or establishing labor camps, or harvesting prisoners for organs or establishing mental health camps for re-educating people.
One who is on Death Row in the US has had thier case through at least one trial and 2 or more appeals and usually get the case to the State or Federal Supreme Courts.
The US doesn't place military units in Hawaii or an Indian Reservation to keep the place under control like France and the UK have done in the past in Northern Ireland or Corsica. The US doesn't cut the hands off of thieves like Saudi Arabia or the Sudan does. The US doesn't run armored units and crack infantry units through demonstrations and kill thousands of people like China has.
As for Captial Punishment, in the US, the people think it is needed. That view may change in the future, but unlike the rest of the world where Capital Punishment is either imposed or banned by the Government without debate, the US has banned it, debated it and brought it back.
Re:Good intentions, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, that's all right then. They'll probably be putting that up at airports and embassies:
"The United States of America - vastly less evil and murderous than China, or Burma or, er... these killer zombies in this movie I saw once, or...um, the Ebola virus."
By God, it makes you damn proud, doesn't it?
StuP
Re:Good intentions, but... (Score:4, Informative)
Amnesty says US leads in human rights violations following September 11 [wsws.org]
Released secret documents prove US involvement in Chile [gwu.edu]
A very brief timeline of US intervention in Latin America and the Carribean [ku.edu]
A Cato institute report linking terrorism against the US directly to US interventionist policies worldwide [cato.org]
The Age of Imperialism: an online history of the US [smplanet.com]
I could keep looking up stuff like this for hours, but I'm getting bored and depressed. Try on google, look for US massacre, intervention, human rights abuse, etc. We Americans need to educate ourselves on what our government has been doing in our name while we weren't looking.
Re:Good intentions, but... (Score:5, Informative)
So here are some more links to document the sordid history of the US abroad.
The Long and Hidden History of the US in Somalia [zmag.org]
Us Approves Invasion of East Timor [wsws.org]
A brief history of CIA involvement in the drug trade [magnet.ch]
The Philippine War and Anti-Imperialism [unt.edu]
Hawaii's annexation a story of betrayal [hawaii-nation.org]
Keep modding me down and I will keep posting new links. My karma is capped right now so we could be here all night. How is it flamebait to talk about human rights abuses in the US in a story about a software license that forbids such abuses?
Re:Good intentions, but... (Score:2)
Interesting example, since the US doesn't follow the UN thing about human rights...
But in any event, if a nation doesn't follow the UN thing on human rights, then they can simply make 'usage licensing' on software illegal: IE anyone can use software if they pay for it. They can even remove software copyright entirely for the government. Either of those two things would make this clause useless.
Re:Good intentions, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Good intentions, but... (Score:2, Funny)
What's next? (Score:5, Funny)
Oh! The humanity!
Oh really? (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait, what? I for one am deeply involved in politics, and this is obviously a horrible idea.
Re:Oh really? (Score:5, Funny)
I agree, you should definitely get out of politics. :)
Re:Oh really? (Score:2)
Human rights violations? Cannot be enforced... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is simply impossible to enforce. What I do like about it, though, is that it'll probably get noticed by the media (well... I guess it already has :-)).
Haha (Score:2)
Umm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Umm (Score:5, Funny)
They believe that they can subvert the democratic processes of their own and others' countries by writing a steganography program with a bizarre license.
Re:Umm (Score:2, Insightful)
Great and all... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Great and all... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Great and all... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this license is a nice idea but completely unenforceable. Even if it were, don't you think it would be kind of a secondary (er, tertiary) concern? I mean c'mon: "Hey! Stop raping 4 year-old girls! Stop using slave labour! Oh, and by the way, we are revoking your license to play Ogg files."
Silliness (Score:3, Insightful)
This is just silliness. One situation that comes to mind - inmates on death row using this software. Then the software company would be fighting the state on behalf of the human rights of the end user for his fundamental human right to life?
Just seems like this is a step down for the free/open source software world, and reminds me of the silly things you find is the M$ EULAs. You want to fight for human rights - WONDERFUL! But be realistic, how many people are going to be helped by the addition of those goals in your software license? Silliness...just silliness...
MORE Offtopic Clauses in License Agreements? (Score:5, Insightful)
License agreements are complicated enough - too complicated much of the time. I recommend taking a stand against "license bloat."
Re:MORE Offtopic Clauses in License Agreements? (Score:2)
I always thought that one of open source's themes is to have small, easy to understand EULA's.
The last thing we need is for bland legal contracts to start containing political messages.
seriously .. (Score:2, Interesting)
Poor girl - But, hey! License violation!
Re:seriously .. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:seriously .. (Score:5, Insightful)
So is murdering women who do not comply with their idea of "family honor".
and they are not trapped as you imply,
reread above reply.
these marriages actually work
did you, by any chance, consider that if all marriages work in a specific culture this is an indicator for lack of freedom ?
They all (Husband and Wife) are very happy,
well, this reminds me of this old story I once heard:
A man defects from the then-comunist eastern europe to the west.
His friends in the west ask him one day:
Q: How was the food there in the east ?
A: Can't complain.
Q: How did the police treat you ?
A: Can't complain.
Q: and what about the economy there ?
A: Can't complain.
Q: why the hell, then, did you defect ?
A: Well, here I can complain
This is not human rights violation, it is simply a cultural difference
This is what every bully outside of the west always say. "but we do it our way !".
Consider that pre-arranged marriage many times are accompanied with forced, non-consentual (sometimes violent) sex. Yes, that's what we in the west usually call rape . And woo to her if she doesn't smile afterwards.
But that's OK, Arab women aren't beaten, violated, or mutilated (circumcized) , they're just culturaly different.
but it's OK for them, ask them.
They can't complain.
Re:circumventet ? (Score:3, Informative)
Is that the same thing American doctors do to make a quick $150 bucks from suckers... err American parents?
I think what he ment was, indeed, female circumcision [religioustolerance.org] . Far from being a laughing matter, it is a horrible mutilation.
Altough male circumcision is medically debateable, female circumcision is not, and it is a MUCH more destructive mutilation.
Anti-Spam Clause (Score:3, Interesting)
This software can not be used to create and/or send unsolicited email.
Why this may be a bad thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously it will be much harder to enforce the provisions of such an end-use restricted agreement. Ineffective licenses based on this approach could further dilute the mostly untested effectiveness of the other, non-corporately defended licenses. If these new licenses become routinely ignored, so will the GPL, possibly to the point of all open source licenses losing legal strength as well as practical credibility.
Even if such licenses were somehow successfully enforced and they gain popularity (and build legal precendents) I worry that "evil" licenses will also become legally binding and increasingly common; only allowing corporate use, forbidding any political use, certain speech restrictions, etc. Even if most of these were thrown out in court it could make things pretty sticky for challengers.
This may be well-intentioned, but I don't think it will or should be adopted for the above reasons. Ironically, I imagine the ACLU and similar groups would agree, even though the authors are trying to defend freedom of speech and expression.
I guess this rules out the U.S. then... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh well...
p.s. Hacktivismo can release their software under any terms they want. If you don't like it, don't use it.
Re:I guess this rules out the U.S. then... (Score:4, Insightful)
Capital punishment is reserved for those who's crimes offend the human rights of the innocent, or of the security of society at large. The ultimate human right is life, and those who would shed human blood on purpose, or as the result of committing some other crime must be dealt with. Discussions of the sociaological causes of crime, or the statistics of prison populations are irrelevant when discussing capital punishment. Each case MUST be taken on it's own; aggregate statistics are irrelevant.
This is why AI and the UN are irrelevant. You cannot compare an enlightened, liberal (in the true sense of the word) and open system like the US to any totalitarian regime in the rest of the world.
Once a person has committed a capital crime, they forfeit their own. It's that simple. I am in favor of capital punishment. I am also pro-life, in the debate over abortion and euthanasia/assisted suicide. This is not an inconsistent position, although it is at odds with the Catholic Church. The difference is that the unborn child is as innocent as can be, has done nothing deserving death, except to exist. It is ironic that some many people who oppose the death penalty for criminals support the right of a Mother to kill her own children.
Re:I guess this rules out the U.S. then... (Score:4, Insightful)
I just don't believe any government should have the right to execute its own people. It's not that I don't believe some people deserve to die, it's because I don't trust the government to decide who deserves to die.
Luckily, currently in the U.S., there are a lot of safeguards and conditions, but who is to say that will continue? Sprinkle in some national paranoia over terrorism, then all of a sudden you see rules changing, people held without a trial indefintely, for example, because they are labeled enemy combatants. If the current climate and paranoia in the U.S. isn't checked, how long before someone like me who dares speak out against the policies of my government is labeled a traitor and traitor is a capital-capable offense?
Bottom line, I don't trust the government to do the right thing, and don't believe I, as a citizen, should support the right for that government to decide what crimes deserves capital punishment. If executions are not allowed, then all grey areas are removed. Throw the bastards away for life. It's not being "soft on crime."
With all that is happening lately in the U.S. politically, can you honestly say you trust that the crimes that warrant capital punishment won't be expanded to include other "crimes" against the country? During colonial times, the colonists fled countries where stealing a loaf of bread was considered a crime against the King, a treasonable offense, and hence worthy of capital punishment.
Do you honestly trust your government to do the right thing? Or more accurately, can you trust the people who keep them all in office to not fall in step like sheep and not throw them out of office for suggesting we need to waive some rights to fight terrorism?
I don't.
Re:I guess this rules out the U.S. then... (Score:3, Insightful)
United States Code is pretty good law, and generally fair, but a lot of the recent actions by our administration have been to move trials out of civilian courts and into another realm - where the traditional protections (trial by a jury of peers, right of appeal, right to be accused, timely trial, etc.) simply don't apply, or exist only at the pleasure of the court. Once a trial is outside of the normal legal system, then the government is able to arbitrarily dish out sentences with impunity - recent dictatorships that "disappear" people are a perfect example of the extreme, with the ONLY difference being that the government is using it's ability to punish to hold power.
If I get accused of being a terrorist tomorrow, I'm reasonably sure I can defend myself in a regular court (since it's not true!), but if I'm suddenly "declared" a non-citizen and find myself before a military court (held in Cuba?), I don't have a chance. This is what scares me - the precident for tossing terrorists across that line opens the way for tossing anybody over. Very disturbing.
Re:I guess this rules out the U.S. then... (Score:5, Interesting)
The United states is amongst only six countries that impose the death penalty on juveniles. The others: Iran, Nigeria, Pakisan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen.
The United States is the only country besides Somalia that has not signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, because it contains a provision prohibiting the execution of children.
So, you can compare the US to many totalitarian regiemes in the world.
And if you think that you cannot compare them because the USA justice system is so infallible, you may like to refer to the study of error rates in death penalty cases "A Broken System: Error rates in Capital Cases, 1973-1995" by James S Leibman, Jeffery Fagan and Valerie West (2000). Search Google for a copy.
The USA is currently holding 600 people indefinately captive in inhuman conditions without any due process and without any legal rights or representation. Your claim that the USA is so "enlightened, liberal and open" that AI and the UN are irrelevant is laughable.
Re:I guess this rules out the U.S. then... (Score:3, Informative)
Sean Sellers [dpio.org] was 16 when he committed the murders he was executed for.
I've seen this a few times in the newspaper, and it took me fifteen seconds to find on Google. (Of course, it helped knowing that Oklahoma was one of the states.) Texas has executed 19 juvenile offenders since 1976.
Re:I guess this rules out the U.S. then... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I guess this rules out the U.S. then... (Score:3, Insightful)
I am pro-life in the case of the unborn children primarily because it is impossible to determine when human life begins, scientifically. The only reasonable boundaries are conception, and birth. Given that the conditions for sustainable life keep getting pushed further and further back in the gestational life of the fetus, birth is an obsolete boundary for determining human life. Therefore, conception is the benchmark I find the most reasonable, given that human life is sacred. The fact that many concieved embryos never implant, or spontaneously abort without the mother ever knowing about it is outside the ability of anyone to regulate. I am prolife in regards to assisted suicide and euthanasia for many reasons, not the least of which is self-preservation. By legislating ways in which the medical profession can legally kill a patient who has become 'burdensome', we open the door to a world where the state may decide who is burdensome, and may make euthanasia mandatory, for the elderly, the infirm, the retarded, the undesirable. The other problem I have, especially with assisted suicide, is the root cause. Most people promoting assisted suicide talk about the suffering of the terminally ill. There are a number of problems with this, but the primary one is that the problem is the pain and difficulty with a terminal illness. There are humane, caring ways of dealing with this, in a way which maintains the dignity of the dying.
Re:I guess this rules out the U.S. then... (Score:3, Insightful)
The tragedy of the whole abortion debate is that so much time and energy is wasted on the idea of "ensoulment." Even for those who don't believe in a supernatural "soul", the debate has been clouded by the idea that there has to be a single defining moment when inanimate matter is suddenly imprinted with all the things necessary to make it a valuable human being. As much as this idea may gratify our egos, it's nonsensical.
"Given that human life is sacred" is to presume a great deal. I'll agree that ability to survive outside the womb is a totally arbitrary signal. But you've failed to eliminate other boundaries on any grounds but convenience to outside observers.
Recognizing that not all the most important things are easy to pin down, what other criteria could we use? The first heartbeat? The first firing of neurons? The ability to feel pain? Or maybe the first abstract thought, or the recognition of the self? The first word? The ability to produce more than you consume? Comprehension of the world sufficient to vote intelligently in the next election? Which of these things makes a developing human being valuable and worthy of legal protection?
My answer would have to be, all of them. And none of them. There's no one point, visible or invisible, which we can point to as a state transition between pointless protoplasm and worthwhile human being. "Human" isn't something we are, it's something we become. It's an ongoing process of picking up memories, facts, sensations, and other bits of trivia, and fitting them into the model of the universe that each of us carry in our heads.
Ultimately, if there's anything that makes us human, that's it. If you could destroy my body, but preserve that pattern in, then it's impossible to claim that I died. Destroy the model, and keep my heart beating, and I'm worse than dead.
For me, this is the only criteria that makes sense. A four celled zygote doesn't have a memory. It can't interact with the world around it except in the most mundanely biochemical way. Hence, there's nothing to protect but future potential. You can say a bit more about a just-born child. But let's face it, babies are stupid; still at the very beginning of a boot process that will span two decades.
You could say that humans collect a soul the way barnacles collected on the Titanic's hull.
But not outside the ability to say something about the sanity of clinging to the extreme pro-life position, especially for religious reasons. If God felt that embryos were so valuable, why does He allow so many of those valuable embryos to go to waste? Why does He allow miscarriages to happen to women who are ready and eager to have a baby? There's no free will defense to fall back on here.
Another inconsistency I see in some of their rhetoric: Why some pro-lifers mock the idea of "animal rights" because animals are unable to fulfill any of the duties that they say come with those rights, yet humans have a "right to life" from the moment of conception, with no more than the expectation that they may be able to fulfill the attached duties at some point in the future?
And we don't dare legalize marijuana because it's a gateway drug to cocaine and heroin. Slippery slope reasoning isn't always invalid, but it's always suspect.
For the record, marijuana is a gateway to junk food.
At best you've claimed--not demonstrated--that there are humane alternatives to assisted suicide. Even then, you haven't shown that assisted suicide is inhumane, immoral, or otherwise an inferior choice to these alternatives.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Free Software Forces of Evil (Score:2)
*giggle* (Score:2)
The only thing which "Hacktivismo" has produced is Camera/Shy... which is an absolutely laughable implementation of an absolutely laughable method of steganogaphy. Anyone who uses Camera/Shy is practically waving a red flag while jumping up and down screaming "I'm trying to hide something!"
Re:*giggle* (Score:3, Informative)
The steganography, however, is entirely broken. The method they use -- fiddling with the least significant bits -- is trivial to identify, even when implemented correctly; but they bungled the implementation (doing wierd things like base64 encoding, which leaves an extremely obvious signature) as well.
Age-old dillema (Score:2)
BSD license was political (Score:5, Informative)
This is not strictly true. The BSD license used to disallow use of software issued under it from being used by the "Police of South Africa", to make a point against apartheid.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:...this goes against what Free licenses are abo (Score:2)
Re:...this goes against what Free licenses are abo (Score:2)
IIRC, the CoDC has published code that opens and exploits back doors in Windows (back orifice) and hactivismo's latest project is a stenography application. Both such products can easily be used for illicit purposes. Perhaps some people believe that some illicit practices (running a peaceful, underground political movement in an authoritarian state), are better than others (running a child prostitution ring, bombing civilian targets, etc.)
Re:...this goes against what Free licenses are abo (Score:3, Interesting)
H'mmm...
In my first startup, when I was much younger and greener, we had a clause in the license of the software we were selling (which was some quite cute AI stuff) saying that it couldn't be used in the manufacture, testing, etc of weapons or munitions. More to the point, we actually refused to sell it to the military, although they were willing customers and our liquidity was going pear shaped. I'm still kind of proud, in an obscure way, about that. I don't want stuff I do to be used to kill people, and I think the world would be a better place if more people took the same attitude.
But I doubt whether this sort of thing has much effect in practice. If the bad guys want to use your code, I can't see that a license is going to stop them - they're bad guys, after all.
GGPL - GREATER GOOD PUBLIC LICENSE (Score:5, Informative)
A google search says that we're running out of G's :-) There are more GGPL:s.
Wait...can Americans use the software then? (Score:3, Interesting)
Separate court for suspected terrorists [washingtonpost.com]
How about something more useful... (Score:2)
Nice idea, but useless (Score:2)
This reminds me of some licenses I've seen prohibiting military applications. While I certainly wouldn't want to see my code used to kill people, I have no illusions about the effectiveness of such a license. When a state -- including ours -- decides something, no matter how repugnant, is necessary in the name of "national security" the rule of law isn't worth a crap unless there's a bigger, meaner state around to enforce it.
While I don't share the "I built housing for the homeless so screw you" arrogance of some of the other posters today, I have to agree that if you want to do some actual good in the world instead of just talking about it, this license is a waste of time.
Can we *please*... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Can we *please*... (Score:3, Funny)
good idea (Score:2, Interesting)
-t
That's not a license... (Score:2, Interesting)
It's a manifesto.
I read the thing, and it takes over half the document just to get to the terms. The first half is discussions of things like the UN Declaration of Human Rights and Magic Candle.
At what point are we going to decide that new and more amusing license agreements aren't going to solve any problems? If you want to publish a political viewpoint, that's great, but using a software license agreement to do it is just silly.
builds on? (Score:5, Informative)
This is not news -- non-free-software has been around for years! These people have simply found another way to antagonize the free software community AND the proprietary software community simultaneously. Yay.
I can't help but think that this would be 10x as effective if they followed vim's [vim.org] lead, and made their software into "charityware", asking for voluntary donations to the human rights organization(s) of their choice. But whatever.
This will stop Al Quada! (Score:3, Funny)
This will stop Al-Quada! (Score:3, Funny)
who decides? (Score:3, Insightful)
Clever, but Sad (Score:3, Insightful)
Some other major problems with this license (Score:3, Insightful)
1. The license claims that dual licensing under the GPL and HESSLA has the advantage "that it will enable developers to produce hybrid software packages (combining the functionality available through, say, Hacktivismo's Six-Four APIs, with some of the functionality of one or more popular GPL-licensed communications programs) and to release the hybrid packages under the HESSLA, without causing those developers to run afoul of the GPL, the HESSLA or both."
Am I just reading the text wrong, or have they just claimed you're allowed to take non-dual-licensed GPL code from a communications program, bundle it with some GPL&HESSLA code and some HESSLA-only code and release it under HESSLA? That's just plain wrong and absurd, since HESSLA is obviously nyt GPL compatible.
2. In several places, the license text claims you essentially must have accepted the license agreement even before having obtained the software (and therefore the accompanying license _agreement_). This is not how agreements work, especially if it's possible to obtain the software in a way which doesn't otherwise infringe the exclusive rights of the copyright owner (e.g. by buying).
3. You may not use the software for "10.1.5 censorship or "filtering" of any published information or expression."
This seems to forbid even things like parents installing filters for their children, and even more obviously ethical uses (how about setting up a filter just for yourself, to protect yourself?).
And the worst:
4. "15. Subsequent Versions of HESSLA. Hacktivismo may publish revised and/or new versions of the Hacktivismo Enhanced-Source Software License Agreement from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns. Each version is given a distinguishing version number. Any Program released by Hacktivismo under a version of this License Agreement prior to Version 1.0, shall be considered released under Version 1.0 of the Hacktivismo Enhanced-Source Software License Agreement, once Version 1.0 is formally released."
In other words, "we believe there's a binding contract between us, and by this clause we are allowed to change the terms of our contract whenever we so wish". This is plainly unacceptable (and probably even unenforceable), whether the license be an open source license or a horribly non-free one. Note that this is very different from the way GPL is usually applied; with GPL, the _licensee_ can decide which version to use (e.g. "version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version").
Especially because of the last point, I believe that nobody should touch software released under this license. I would of course recommend staying away from it even after license version 1.0 is released, but especially before that
The cool thing about human rights violations... (Score:4, Informative)
-- Terry
Point of order... (Score:4, Insightful)
Their hearts are the right place, but c'mon! Let's say Amnesty International comes forward saying that Regime X violates human rights. Then you find out that Regime X is using your software. Do you believe that Regime X, torturer of thousands, gives a rats ass about some programmer's licence terms?
Do you think that your government is going to say, "Well sure, they sodomize children in the factories, but let's try economic sanctions because of their software license violations."
-----
On a side note, the U.S. is routinely criticized for the continued use of the death penalty, the living conditions of prisoners, domestic spying, imprisonment without due process, and other sundry items. Since the U.S. is a democratic republic, does that mean that everyone in the U.S. is forbidden the use of this software due to their complicity in human rights violations?
Real Bad Idea (Score:3, Interesting)
I gave some thought to the whole licensing issue - what if the apps were misused, or used for purposes that I might not agree with? What if they were used by terrorists, or hate groups, or criminals, or the RIAA? In the end I put them out under the GPL. Here's the rationale for my decision:
1) I'm not Robert Oppenheimer ("Physicists have known sin, and this is a knowledge which they cannot lose.") and the apps are not WMD's.
2) The type of people that might misuse the apps are unlikely to honor my license anyway.
3) Enforcement of the licence is at best, likely to be very difficult.
4) Restrictions on who is allowed to use an application could easily get out of hand. I do not look forward to the day, when I want to use an OSS app - only to discover it's only licensed to left-handed female Otaku freemasons.
Personally, I think if an OSS application has legitimate non-destructive uses, it should be licensed in a manner that does not restrict who can use it. The type of restrictions proposed will only lead to political correctness that will undermine the whole OSS movement.
why not just... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sort of joking... sort of serious.
On the serious side, you cannot honestly argue that ANY government on this planet has not committed human rights abuses. People keep blathering on and on about what country did what, but that's folly, and simply reaks of agenda pushing.
And on that note, this whole discussion is ridiculous as this is so obviously an extremely stupid idea; every government has their own definition of "human rights", and this "license" will not be worth a damn.
Re:Can't go to prison. (Score:2)