Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Open Source Programming

The Ethical Source Movement Launches a New Kind of Open-Source Organization (zdnet.com) 258

Posted by EditorDavid from the free-as-in-unless-you're-evil dept.
ZDNet takes a look at a new nonprofit group called the Organization for Ethical Source (OES): The OES is devoted to the idea that the free software and open-source concept of "Freedom Zero" are outdated. Freedom Zero is "the freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose." It's fundamental to how open-source software is made and used... They hate the notion that open-source software can be used for any purpose including "evil" purposes. The group states:

The world has changed since the Open Source Definition was created — open source has become ubiquitous, and is now being leveraged by bad actors for mass surveillance, racist policing, and other human rights abuses all over the world. The OES believes that the open-source community must evolve to address the magnitude and complexity of today's social, political, and technological challenges...

How does this actually work in a license...?

The Software shall not be used by any person or entity for any systems, activities, or other uses that violate any Human Rights Laws. "Human Rights Laws" means any applicable laws, regulations, or rules (collectively, "Laws") that protect human, civil, labor, privacy, political, environmental, security, economic, due process, or similar rights....

This latest version of the license was developed in collaboration with a pro-bono legal team from Corporate Accountability Lab (CAL). It has been adopted by many open-source projects including the Ruby library VCR; mobile app development tool Gryphon; Javascript mapping library react-leaflet; and WeTransfer's entire open-source portfolio...

The organization adds, though, the license's most significant impact may be the debate it sparked between ethical-minded developers and open-source traditionalists around the primacy of Freedom Zero.
The article includes this quote from someone described as an open source-savvy lawyer.

"To me, ethical licensing is a case of someone with a very small hammer seeing every problem as a nail, and not even acknowledging that the nail is far too big for the hammer."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Ethical Source Movement Launches a New Kind of Open-Source Organization More

The Ethical Source Movement Launches a New Kind of Open-Source Organization

Comments Filter:

  • Offensive/Etical/Politically Correct... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by war4peace ( 1628283 ) on Sunday January 24, 2021 @07:45AM (#60985054)

    There's a huge similarity between all those.
    Someone, somewhere, will always consider $THING as being offensive / Unethical / not Politically Correct, simply because there are two facets of $THING, and invariably two opposing groups looking at it.

    Specific to this license, entities which ignore Human Rights laws will totally cease using open source software because of those words. /sarcasm

    • Re:Offensive/Etical/Politically Correct... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by PolygamousRanchKid ( 1290638 ) on Sunday January 24, 2021 @08:02AM (#60985110)

      It seems to me, that the name "Organization for Ethical Source". is in itself . . . unethical.

    • Re:Offensive/Etical/Politically Correct... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Squash ( 2258 ) on Sunday January 24, 2021 @08:25AM (#60985186) Homepage

      They are linked on purpose as those concepts have been adopted and weaponized by partisan actors around the world... And this organization stands in stark contrast to the original ideals of free software which intend to empower every person in every place, not just the people you like in the places you like. I am really bothered by the level of activism found in software these days, often by folks who's only contribution is that activism.

      I obviously won't be working on any software using a license that makes a moral judgement on the user. I've been quite happy with GPL2 and MIT and those licenses reflect my ideals and expectations adequately.

      And once again, free software > open source software.

      • They are linked on purpose as those concepts have been adopted and weaponized by partisan actors around the world... And this organization stands in stark contrast to the original ideals of free software which intend to empower every person in every place, not just the people you like in the places you like. I am really bothered by the level of activism found in software these days, often by folks who's only contribution is that activism.

        Of which activism is quite regressive. Codes of conduct, sexist claims that men are inferior programmers https://www.bgosoftware.com/bl... [bgosoftware.com] and now an impossible to define ethical aspect that would seem to require an application and a checklist of acceptable behavior on the part of the potential user.

        I obviously won't be working on any software using a license that makes a moral judgement on the user.

        One of the values that is shared by the far left and far right is they are quick to judge, and love to castigate anyone who doesn't share their values.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by AleRunner ( 4556245 )

          now an impossible to define ethical aspect that would seem to require an application and a checklist of acceptable behavior on the part of the potential user.

          Actually I think that their definition seems to be quite clear [ethicalsource.dev] and mostly reasonable. My thinking is that what will be wrong with it is that they will exclude political beliefs as one of the things that cannot be discriminated against. This is something that has been missing from various "Code of Conduct"s that I have examined and is a fundamental problem.

          However, apart from that specific suggestion, I'd really like to see something specific that's wrong with their detailed proposals rather than hand wavi

          • Re:Offensive/Etical/Politically Correct... (Score:4, Informative)

            by Entrope ( 68843 ) on Sunday January 24, 2021 @10:34AM (#60985534) Homepage

            Is the requirement that a community be "welcoming and just" clear? Is minimizing "the risk of abuse or harm to others" predictable? What constitutes "fair compensation"?

            There are a lot of feel-good but very fuzzy words at the heart of the so-called Ethical Source Definition. Ask five people what makes a community "just" and you'll probably get at least six different answers.

            • Is the requirement that a community be "welcoming and just" clear? Is minimizing "the risk of abuse or harm to others" predictable? What constitutes "fair compensation"?

              There are a lot of feel-good but very fuzzy words at the heart of the so-called Ethical Source Definition. Ask five people what makes a community "just" and you'll probably get at least six different answers.

              It's a fair comment. In English law lack of clarity is held against the author of a contract or document so I'd say that any "reasonable" (where reasonable is a specific legal term) definition of those things should hold.

              E.g. when it comes to "just" they define it as "must publish clear rules for project governance" and ensure that the code of conduct is "code of conduct that is consistently and fairly enforced". Since there's no definition about clear rules then any set of clear rules, from the rules of

            • Is the requirement that a community be "welcoming and just" clear? Is minimizing "the risk of abuse or harm to others" predictable?

              None of those are clear. I used the example of a person writing an open source database, and said database being used by a pedo - Is that programmer liable?

              What if a person releases their learning project of a calculator, and a person uses it to cheat on their income taxes?

              Making unenforceable rules is a great way to cause people to completely lose respect for the people making up those rules.

          • The problem is that laws are created by processes that may not be ethical.

            If China passes laws that say that circumvention of the Great Firewall is a human rights violation because (insert tortured explanation here) then it becomes a license violation to use a program released under this license to do so.

            Tying use of code to law is self-defeating when the laws are not made for the benefit of The People. Sometimes they are, sometimes not.

            This is a bad idea.

            • Re: Offensive/Etical/Politically Correct... (Score:4, Insightful)

              by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Sunday January 24, 2021 @11:27AM (#60985742)

              It is worse: "Ethical" does not have a fixed definition. Ethics is just a designation for a set of standards of behavior. _Any_ set of standards for behavior. For example, killing all those "racially inferior" to strengthen the race is perfectly valid ethics if done according to some standards that mandate this behavior.

          • However, apart from that specific suggestion, I'd really like to see something specific that's wrong with their detailed proposals rather than hand waving "they must be Social Justice Warriors and so the Must Be Bad". Given a specific list like the one they already have, specific criticisms are called for rather than hand-waving.

            I have one, and that's all you need. How are they going to enforce this? I learned long ago that making unenforceable "laws" simply cause people to lose respect for the body making the unenforceable laws.

            But since we're here - the premise is at base, anti technology. FTA: "For too long we've been comforting ourselves with the myth that technology is inherently neutral.. But there is nothing neutral about police using facial recognition algorithms to target legitimate protestors, or algorithms that perpet

          • now an impossible to define ethical aspect that would seem to require an application and a checklist of acceptable behavior on the part of the potential user.

            Actually I think that their definition seems to be quite clear [ethicalsource.dev] and mostly reasonable.

            My issue with that, is it doesn't include the things referenced in the article from Ms Emke: " For too long we've been comforting ourselves with the myth that technology is inherently neutral. But there is nothing neutral about police using facial recognition algorithms to target legitimate protestors, or algorithms that perpetuate bias and sexism and racism, or any other of the dozens of kinds of human rights abuses we see today,"

            So I get a little skittish when I see a laundry list not included in that

    • Re:Offensive/Etical/Politically Correct... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by weilawei ( 897823 ) on Sunday January 24, 2021 @08:56AM (#60985264)

      The right to offend is more important than any supposed right to not be offended.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by AleRunner ( 4556245 )

        The right to offend is more important than any supposed right to not be offended.

        Bullshit. What if I don't care at all what you say, no matter how offensive you try, in your pathetic manner, to be? You have no right whatsoever to offend me and I just find you and your ideas a total joke.

        (hope I offended you - if not, I demand compensation now)

      • I.e. For your "right to offend" to not be offended upon.
        Hell, you're not even pleading against the argument in the story but instead LITERALLY choosing to be a priori offended by the misrepresentations of it in the summary, which you then distort and misrepresent further.
        Or as the kids today would put it: "Triggered!!!".

        Or, to put it differently, you are pleading to be allowed to be a bully.
        Which in itself only underlines the fact that you are one. A beggar and a bootlicker to power and authority.
        Cause if y

    • Re:Offensive/Etical/Politically Correct... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 ) on Sunday January 24, 2021 @10:01AM (#60985410)

      There's a huge similarity between all those. Someone, somewhere, will always consider $THING as being offensive / Unethical / not Politically Correct, simply because there are two facets of $THING, and invariably two opposing groups looking at it.

      Specific to this license, entities which ignore Human Rights laws will totally cease using open source software because of those words. /sarcasm

      Right. So put all the offended groups together, and no one can use the software. We gotta define ethical.

      The list of likely unethicals: Men, women, non-vegans, any political party, the USA, the rest of the world, LGBT community, non LGBT community. Non-conforming comedians not allowed to perform on college campuses, people who wear green on Thursday's. People who buy labradoodles. People who do bong hits for Jesus.

      Yes, it would be upsetting to have written software that might have been used to commit genocide or break the law. But trying to dictate who can use it is quixotic. As a test case, most people don't put North Korea on the good guys list. How are you going to keep them from their very own linux Distro?

      The lawyer they quote is correct about the tiny hammer - the problem with the easily offended is they are like obsessive compulsives, scurrying around their room, judging everything for it's goodness, making everything oh so tidy, and continuing to do it every waking moment. Rome might be burning outside, but everything in their little room is just perfect!

    • Political correctness is different. Following Sapir-Whorf, it's an attempt to control mental processes by making some language off-limits.

      Only egalitarians want to do this.

      We are in the midst of a Communist takeover here in the West, and accepting PC is accepting that takeover.

      Many of us would rather not go down the dark path that also took Cuba, Russia, Venezuela, Cambodia, and South Africa.

  • Correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by niftydude ( 1745144 ) on Sunday January 24, 2021 @07:54AM (#60985082)
    But illegal is illegal. A license can't be written to provide users the right to break ANY laws. It's just a license.

    It just seems totally redundant to write a license which states "The Software shall not be used by any person or entity for any systems, activities, or other uses that violate any Human Rights Laws. "Human Rights Laws" means any applicable laws, regulations, or rules (collectively, "Laws") that protect human, civil, labor, privacy, political, environmental, security, economic, due process, or similar rights...."

    You already weren't allowed to break any laws, regulations or rules - regardless of what the license said. And if you were going to break laws, a license saying you shouldn't won't really stop you, because you'll just break that as well.

    Are these people serious?

    • oh yes, they ARE serious - they don't have enough CoC nonsense, they need to actually include it in licenses, to go further in their attempts to impose their views on the world. this one goes way beyond your run of the mill lip service variety of virtue signaling. given how scared everyone seems to be of SJWs today, I wouldn't be THAT surprised if they see much greater adoption than otherwise a sane person would expect them to have.

    • You already weren't allowed to break any laws, regulations or rules - regardless of what the license said. And if you were going to break laws, a license saying you shouldn't won't really stop you, because you'll just break that as well.

      Yeah - it's a weird version of virtue signalling to the world.

      Are these people serious?

      I want someone to write some programs that they refuse to license to vegans because the believe veganism is immoral.

    • The references to law are actually the most credible requirements. Where it'll become really messy is where the licence requires adherence to both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Global Compact. These documents are not laws. They were written to provide principles that could then be put into effect via laws. This makes them notoriously ambiguous and certainly not something on which to base a licence. Add that to the complexity of actual laws and a business would be insane to rely on sof

  • Is this a parody? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Gavagai80 ( 1275204 ) on Sunday January 24, 2021 @07:55AM (#60985088) Homepage

    It reads like a joke. You might as well start adding "any company except Microsoft and Oracle can use this code, because I dislike them" clauses to licenses.

    • Actually since a licence is granted by the author to the users, there is actually no problem for the author to refuse to grant a licence to any entity they want, amirite?

      It should be easy to add a "Entity $evil is not allowed to acquire, use, or redistribute $software" clause in any distribution licence.

      • This is not going to be enforceable.
        • "If usage of my thing violates my morality you can't use it."
        • "How do we know if we are violating your morality"
        • "I'll tell you when it happens."
    • You are welcome to add whatever restrictions you want to your license. But, once you close that door, calling it "Open" is alternative fact.

  • Ah, they are here (Score:5, Insightful)

    by johannesg ( 664142 ) on Sunday January 24, 2021 @07:59AM (#60985094)

    The SJW. The woke. They've come for us now. They desire for open source licenses to state that you cannot use the software if they disagree with anything you've ever said or done or might say or might do. And remember: that _will_ include things like "voting republican", or "doing with business with someone who also does business with other people we disagree with". Whatever software ends up under this license is going to be untouchable; linking to it will instantly open you up to blackmail and cancelling.

    What's that you say? You don't do anything of that kind? WRONG! Your speech is full of micro-agressions and your words are full of endless dogwhistles only they know how to hear and interpret. If they are not yet your masters, they desire to be. None of them have ever contributed anything to open source at all, but now they want to control it. Because it's free, and that's a situation they cannot accept.

    • Well unfortunately at the end of the day it is true that our whole world is built upon the suffering of others less fortunate than us, and by extension, all the software we use is used to oppress someone, somewhere, whether directly or indirectly.

      So I guess the only solution is to ditch Linux and FOSS and move back to Windows 10 and proprietary software, so that we suffer, too. At least this way we can hold the moral high ground.

      • Corporations and governments alike have all discovered that for the vast majority of non-specialised computing scenarios, it's vastly cheaper and more beneficial for everyone to share and share alike. Coraline can push for overly political codes of conduct all she likes but she will never re-license key projects without fighting a two-pronged ideological battle against for-profit companies and free software zealots. The former will employ key contributors to maintain the status quo and the latter deals with

    • Re:Ah, they are here (Score:4, Interesting)

      by BKX ( 5066 ) on Sunday January 24, 2021 @08:52AM (#60985254) Journal

      Already happening. I have written a license, and intend to use it for an upcoming project, that prohibits use by Republicans and other right-wingers for political purposes unless they buy a more expensive commercial version of the license. Very expensive. With royalties. The standard license is free. This way, when I sue them, I can point to there already being a license that covers the intended use, complete with a price and a method of purchase. Makes winning a lot easier.

      And, of course, this is my right as a creator. I don't want any Republicans using my tools for their evil Republican purposes and am willing to go to court over it. Don't like it, stop being an evil bastard.

      • It's good that you've written that license.

        Now, if you'll just write some code to go with it....

      • Have you truly? Let's see your language, then. I bet there are more than a few holes large enough to drive through.

        Don't you know that Satan comes dressed as an angel? He doesn't exactly wear a button on his jacket that tells you he's evil.

        • Don't you know that Satan comes dressed as an angel?

          Well, he is an angel, so that seems pretty reasonable to me.

          He doesn't exactly wear a button on his jacket that tells you he's evil.

          That seems to be a matter of opinion. Michael isn't exactly an unbiased observer in this fight.

      • Already happening. I have written a license, and intend to use it for an upcoming project, that prohibits use by Republicans and other right-wingers for political purposes unless they buy a more expensive commercial version of the license. Very expensive. With royalties. The standard license is free. This way, when I sue them, I can point to there already being a license that covers the intended use, complete with a price and a method of purchase. Makes winning a lot easier.

        And, of course, this is my right as a creator. I don't want any Republicans using my tools for their evil Republican purposes and am willing to go to court over it. Don't like it, stop being an evil bastard.

        I agree! I am going to write a license that prohibits use of my software by members of any religion that subjugates women and condones throwing gays off of buildings.

        I have another license in the works too that prohibits use by any organization that seizes territory and declares an autonomous zone [wikipedia.org]. Because "insurrection".

        It's my right as a creator, eh?

        • I have another license in the works too that prohibits use by any organization that seizes territory and declares an autonomous zone.

          Good for you, that's your right. Though I'm fairly sure you're a moron because the link you posted says:

          The zone was a self-organized space, without official leadership

          so there was no organisation according to your very own source, so your license is kind of pointless.

          Because "insurrection".

          Oop called it! You are a moron.

          It's my right as a creator, eh?

          Absolutely! Abject stup

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by sinij ( 911942 )
          I am going to write an automatic licensing generator where you can insert prohibition on any ideology, religion and immutable characteristic and release it under MIT. Because fuck all of you, lets see the world burn.

      • You are trying to be a comedian, or being seriously illustrating how ridiculous such statements are through irony, or a clueless troll. Hard to tell which!

        So, I will give you both praise and scorn. You pick which you deserve :)

    • When I first read the summary, my first thought was that this is stupid and unworkable. Then I look through the comments and most of then, like yours, seem to be actively trying to get me to agree with the summary.

      Drop the hyperbole and the victim-language. Call it out for what it isâ"stupid and unworkableâ"without the dystopian conspiracy attached to it and people might actually agree with you. Unless, of course, the whole point of your post was to preach to the choir.

      Believe it or not, most peop

      • No, that's something I completely disagree with. Don't deny that there is a pattern of people going around and trying to attach their extremely dubious 'values' to everything. Sports, media, websites, software, politics, *everything* has to fall under their control, conform to their view of the world.

        And it's just that: _their_ view of the world. That viewpoint is not universal, and even if you were so naive as to think that surely nobody would disagree with human rights, we all know what this is really abo

        • That viewpoint is not universal, and even if you were so naive as to think that surely nobody would disagree with human rights, we all know what this is really about. Control. Power. The ability to cancel. The ability to rule.

          No viewpoint is universal. That's part of the human condition.

          But I think you are right: they seek Control, or finding meaning in life by subjugating others.

          This is different from good leadership, which subjugates the insane and incompetent in order to have sanity and competence.

      • When I first read the summary, my first thought was that this is stupid and unworkable. Then I look through the comments and most of then, like yours, seem to be actively trying to get me to agree with the summary.

        Drop the hyperbole and the victim-language. Call it out for what it isâ"stupid and unworkableâ"without the dystopian conspiracy attached to it and people might actually agree with you. Unless, of course, the whole point of your post was to preach to the choir.

        As opposed to dystopian conspiracy - One of the valuable tools when faced with an unworkable premise like determining who can use software based on the personal ethics of the programmer - is ridicule.

        Sometimes that ridicule veers into politics and the nature of right and left wing, and unintended consequences.

        The point is, if a person demands complete control over the software they write, they shouldn't release it. Because it would never rise above virtue signalling. Or do thy have a criminal penalty f

    • If they are not yet your masters, they desire to be.

      All human societies die by class warfare.

      The many look around and say, "we don't have much, but They do," and so they overthrow Them, only to realize that They had some skills, knowledge, and abilities that make a society healthy.

      Then everyone gets to be equally poor and miserable together.

      Time after time.

  • The irony (Score:3)

    by PeeAitchPee ( 712652 ) on Sunday January 24, 2021 @08:02AM (#60985106)

    This crap was probably written by some tool on their Apple iMac, constructed by slave labor in the abomination of human rights we call China.

    Do we really want software licenses developed by the "words == violence" crew? Who would EVER use this besides other woke turds? There are endless recent examples of people weaponizing these kinds of policies via their unequal application.

    As long as people are in charge of determining what is wrongthink and what isn't, this will always be a non-starter.

  • This will lead to problems (Score:5, Insightful)

    by _merlin ( 160982 ) on Sunday January 24, 2021 @08:04AM (#60985122) Homepage Journal

    First of all, how does this work with jurisdiction? Does it only apply to "human rights laws" in the jurisdiction where the software is used, or where it was written, or does it apply to all "human rights laws" enacted anywhere in the world? If I'm in Australia running software developed in China on a server in Finland, whose human rights laws does the license car about? If whatever I'm doing with the software violates Australian human rights laws, I'm already violating local laws and the state police or the AFP can come for me. If I'm violating Finland's human rights laws, the Finnish authorities can kick me off my host. In either case, I have bigger issues than a software license violation. The license only makes sense if it's supposed to extend the jurisdiction of human rights laws from elsewhere, but this will create a bigger problem.

    If the license applies to human rights laws from the jurisdiction where the software was written, the Chinese developer needs to sue me for breach of contract for it to have any effect. Trying to do this to someone in a different jurisdiction is going to be expensive. It's probably going to be too expensive and impractical for them to sue me in Australia. If they do it at home in China, they'll presumably get a default judgement in their favour because I won't bother to spend any money on defence. They likely won't be able to get any damages beyond court costs, and actually making me pay would be difficult. Even with this default judgement in their favour, they have the issue of trying to enforce it. They can try to contact my hosting provider, show them that I'm using software in breach of the license, and get me shut down, but is the provider going to care?

    It also doesn't define what a "human rights law" is very clearly, leaving that up to what governments enact. Do you really want to tie your license to whatever laws any old government decides to enact "for your own good"? I'm sure there's at least one "human rights law" somewhere that you disagree with. Stuff like hate speech laws are framed as "human rights laws". Apartheid policies were purportedly "human rights laws" giving a path to self-determination for black South Africans by requiring them to have their own businesses, universities, etc.

    And speaking of Apartheid, this is something we've already been through. Back in the early days of the GPL, people wanted to add restrictions to their software licenses prohibiting use by sanctioned regimes, with Apartheid South Africa being the primary target. They requested exemptions from the GPL's prohibition on additional restrictions to allow this. RMS et al vehemently against allowing these kinds of restrictions.

    In the end, I don't think this is really the kind of thing that should go in a software license. It's overly broad and open-ended, and at the same time toothless. It's really just a feel-good measure, a kind of virtue-signalling for keyboard warriors. If thereâ(TM)s really a human rights violation in play, that should be the primary issue, not some breach of license in a software license.

  • "evil" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by markdavis ( 642305 ) on Sunday January 24, 2021 @08:11AM (#60985140)

    >"They hate the notion that open-source software can be used for any purpose including "evil" purposes."

    And so they wish to define and enforce what is "evil". Let's explore some of their requirements:

    "Its community is welcoming and just. The software projectâ(TM)s community of maintainers and contributors must publish clear rules for project governance and adopt a comprehensive code of conduct that is consistently and fairly enforced."

    So, it doesn't matter if you just want to develop a program, it needs to be done in a way that creates a bureaucracy. And probably one that probably grows in complexity and resources forever.

    "It puts accessibility first. If the software has a user interface, it must be designed with accessibility in mind, ensuring all software functionality is available to all users, including users who may rely on assistive devices."

    So, you are "evil" if your program doesn't focus on accessibility for every possible situation and person- ones you know or not, ones that exist right right now or not, even if it only affects 1 person in a billion.

    "It prioritizes user safety. The software must be designed with features and safeguards that minimize the risk of abuse or harm to others through the use of the software."

    Meaningless drivel. Define "others", "harm" and "abuse." Does your app allow taking a photo of someone else who thinks it harms their privacy? Does your app allow sending an Email or creating a printed flier which might "offend" someone?

    I could go on, but you get the idea. It is one thing to set some general, voluntary principles. But these people want to dictate every minutia on HOW their software is used, based on their own weakly defined, changing, regional, or even ridiculous beliefs, and somehow enforce that, so you have the "freedom" to use the software. Good luck with that. Your "protection" might also be someone else's censorship, discrimination, and suppression of free thought and expression.

    >"To me, ethical licensing is a case of someone with a very small hammer seeing every problem as a nail, and not even even acknowledging that the nail is far too big for the hammer."

    Or, sometimes, a hammer is just a hammer. What others do with it is not your responsibility, concern, or fault. At this point, I am waiting for the day when I try to buy a hammer at a store and have to sign a 100 page agreement about all the "evil" things for which I am not allowed to use it, lest my license to use it will be revoked.

    • Don't use that hammer to build a chicken coop. It's unethical to raise animals for the purpose of purloining their eggs or (omg) eating said animals. Not only do I want the hammer back, but I think all nails should be registered so that someone who has a hammer I don't know about can consume them for a purpose that I deem immoral. I know what you're thinking, you can just make your own hammer AND nails. Well, that's about to become a felony. Oh, and it's still a felony if you lend your equipment to som

    • A simple solution will be: they are the evil themselves. Evil government can always deploy whatever software they like since copyright law is enforced by governments, and no government will call themselves human right abusers. Meanwhile sincere honest people who want to overthrow evil tyranny will be labelled "racist" / "terrorist" and be prisoned by another new reason - copyright violation. So, no, putting ethic requirement into copyright license don't stop evil. It is assisting evil.

  • I think it's unethical to... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Gabest ( 852807 ) on Sunday January 24, 2021 @08:14AM (#60985148)

    ...put a space between statements and brackets. This is where open-source dies.

    • You put brackets on the same line as the conditional statement ?

      Come the final revolution, our deaf black lesbian overloads will be putting you up against the wall first, mate.

    • ...put a space between statements and brackets. This is where open-source dies.

      Oh man are you going to be pissed when you look at the UID of your post.

  • Havenâ(TM)t we been here before? (Score:3)

    by MysteriousPreacher ( 702266 ) on Sunday January 24, 2021 @08:18AM (#60985162) Journal

    1. Coraline Ada Ehmke involved.

    2. Code of conduct adapted from the Contributor Covenant.

    3. Feminism and associated isms.

    While the site has not yet gone full underpants on head, they probably learnt from the FreeBSD CoC fallout. It will come as more explicit intersectionality references and allegations of systemic inequality ramp-up.Yup, Open Source Plus is here. Sharpen those pitchforks.

  • Turn it around, do-gooder idiots. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by greytree ( 7124971 ) on Sunday January 24, 2021 @08:21AM (#60985170)

    If discriminating against men and boys for computer work is okay ( CODE.ORG YOU SEXIST SOWS ), is discriminating against women and girls for medical work okay ?

    If Black Pride is okay, is White Pride also okay ?

    If this open source nonsense is okay, would it be okay if a fascist organisation started a totalitarian-supporting open source movement ?

    NO NO, NO NO and NO NO.

    These do-gooder idiots need to take a good look at themselves and the riduculous, horrible positions they take.

    • In a closer-to-perfect world, there would be no need for 'black pride', 'white pride', 'gay pride', and anything similar to that, because those differences wouldn't even enter into anyones' thought patterns. It would be "that's my neighbor Joe", not "that's my BLACK neighbor Joe" or "that's my WHITE neighbor Joe" or "that's my GAY neighbor Joe".
      Oh and by the way I apply the same philosophy to sexism, ageism, and so on.

      • There is no need in this - imperfect - world for racist pride, sexist pride or any other silly discrimination.
        The only people who can un-hypocritically associate themselves with that nonsense are racists, sexists and other prejudiced people.
        The decent people campaign AGAINST discrimination not FOR IT, FFS.

        See that knuckle-dragging ku klux klan idiot with a mullet, marching around shouting "White Pride !"?
        He is doing the same as Joe Biden did when he picked Harris BECAUSE OF HER GENDER AND RACE.
        Only Biden's

  • So a country narrows the definition of what is Human so they don't violate human rights by their own laws. I think you will find there are a few countries that have already done this but the SJW totally ignores this blatant racism as those countries have political systems they admire but have yet to experience properly

  • I can't imagine a single fortune 100 company (Score:3)

    by bobstreo ( 1320787 ) on Sunday January 24, 2021 @08:25AM (#60985184)

    that could possible continue to use their software under this license.

  • Not a new idea (Score:3, Informative)

    by pivi ( 555605 ) on Sunday January 24, 2021 @08:27AM (#60985190)
    and probably not good either. "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil." see http://www.json.org/license.ht... [json.org]

  • Does This Take Jurisdiction Into Account? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wisnoskij ( 1206448 ) on Sunday January 24, 2021 @08:53AM (#60985258) Homepage

    The way it is worded any "laws, regulations, or rules" sounds like they theoretically consider a Taiwanese DnD house rules as legally binding for a OS project developed and utilized by the Hawaiian government.

    Even without going all the way down to interpersonal rules and sticking to government rules, this would incorporate enough rules that everything will be illegal, including doing nothing. I realize that the laws must be related to "Human Rights", but at this scale that is irrelevant a fraction of infinity is still infinity.

    The suspicious side of me believes that this was probably intentional. Their has been a huge push over the last few decades towards the use of unspecified, unwritten, unexplained, and unknowable rules being applied. Big tech knows that if they ever write down the rules in detail that they lose absolute control to do whatever they want and that they can be accursed of breaking their own rules.

    The way this is worded, we were all violation of this license the second it was drafted, meaning they can sue or ban any person on earth preemptively or at any point they wish.

  • Goals vs. means (Score:3)

    by dskoll ( 99328 ) on Sunday January 24, 2021 @08:55AM (#60985262) Homepage

    I don't think anyone can argue that promoting human rights is a Good Thing, but I don't think software licenses like this are the way to do it. They are mostly virtue-signalling rather than taking action.

    "Yes, I know my cell phone was built with slave labor, but I'm not letting China use my Web development plugin... that'll show the bastards!!!"

    Any organization that violates human rights is unlikely to be deterred by a software license. And what exactly is the definition of a human right? As a Canadian, I consider the right to free medical care a basic human right. Does that mean I should prohibit US for-profit hospitals from using any software I create? Where would it end?

    • Yep, itâ(TM)s pure virtue signalling. The major users of open source are already onboard with the message. Itâ(TM)s yet another example to shoehorn left-wing politics into what is inherently apolitical and already open to anybody with the ability and drive to participate.

      The licences they push are a throwback to the old days of having far too many licences, many containing esoteric terms. While Google or Apple might donate money to this nonsense, they will quickly drop or fork any project that ado

    • I don't think anyone can argue that promoting human rights is a Good Thing

      You're right. Human Rights is a bad thing because it creates totalitarian government.

      If you give the tyrant a universal rule to enforce, soon you will have total state control.

      Human rights ("civil rights" within a nation, "human rights" in an international context) gives tyrants that excuse for infinite power.

  • How people can go so fundamentally wrong in such an obvious fashion is fascinating. Also, the gall to think that the FOSS movement has not carefully considered this question back when...

    • Re:So "ethical source" = "non-free source" (Score:5, Informative)

      by i.r.id10t ( 595143 ) on Sunday January 24, 2021 @09:53AM (#60985388)

      They did.

      Items #5 and #6 from the Open Source Definition

      5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
      The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.

      6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
      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 license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.

        This also prohibits someone from making software for a specific group, e.g. a social network for persecuted Uyghurs that prohibits Han Chinese from using it because the Han are busy committing a silk glove genocide against the Uyghurs.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by gweihir ( 88907 )

          The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.

          This also prohibits someone from making software for a specific group, e.g. a social network for persecuted Uyghurs that prohibits Han Chinese from using it because the Han are busy committing a silk glove genocide against the Uyghurs.

          Nope. As long as anybody else is allowed to use the source code and or a binary version, it is perfectly fine. This is about the _license_, not about the code itself. Obviously, code can and often will be specific to an application and some times that application will only make sense in the context of a specific group. Or do you think, say, an app for a diabetic to track their sugar levels is also against the license, because not everybody is diabetic? Or an app with an UI in English is against the license

  • Bill of Ethics (Score:4, Insightful)

    by lkcl ( 517947 ) <lkcl@lkcl.net> on Sunday January 24, 2021 @09:11AM (#60985298) Homepage

    there are already some extremely good comments here that indicate that this initiative is seriously problematic and smacks of SJW-ism (SJW-ism has actually been analysed by psychologists and found to be literally no different from people who join Religious Cults)

    there is however an extremely good point - and a precedent for it - the Hippocratic Oath does *not* apply to Software Engineering. similar codes apply to Chartered Architects; there's even an oath that anyone may take for Engineers. there are even laws and responsibilities that are well-defined for Accountants, Doctors, Architects, Civil Engineers.

    yet this is *entirely missing* for Software - hence all the severe problems we are seeing that not even the GDPR properly covers, where massive Corporations can cause immense damage, even end up spreading "fake news" that results in "outrage" riots and people get executed by mobs without a trial (as happened in India).

    so i "get" that there is something missing... but naively creating a software license without proper debate or definitions, especially in the current climate of dangerously-guilt-laden SJW-ism, is going to cause far more harm and create far more problems than it's intended to fix.

    the starting point that i have studied for some time is the Titanian's "Bill of Ethics". developed by Bob Podolski (the son of the famous "P" in the Einsten Podolsky Rosenberg - EPR - Proof) it starts with a *mathematical* definition of an ethical act.

    Bob points out that "Bill of Rights" is an innocuous but extremely dangerous concept. you have a RIGHT to something you don't appreciate or understand its full consequences for others. you have a RIGHT to be PROVIDED with something that you are, effectively, completely abdicating responsibility for, to some nebulous party or concept that has absolutely no power to give you what you so desperately crave!

    whereas the "Bill of Ethics" defines very clearly the responsibility for your actions and places the burden for that assessment on YOU.

    this initiative, despite its goals being laudable, by even mentioning "rights", further entrenches this extremely dangerous and insidious concept that somehow there is an authority that will provide us with those "rights", rather than making it our own direct responsibility. i won't even go into the unbelievable dangers of the toxic "conduct" documents that they expect people to adhere to.

    not only that but by not consulting anybody - widely - before going ahead - they've set themselves up for failure. did they consult with the FSF, with the GNU Project, or with any prominent Free Software projects, to see if it's something that can or should be added to the GPL, for example? did they consult with the Apache Software Foundation to see if it's appropriate to add to the Apache2 license?

    overall then i am not just unimpressed, i am alarmed at their whole approach.

    • the Hippocratic Oath does *not* apply to Software Engineering. similar codes apply to Chartered Architects; there's even an oath that anyone may take for Engineers. there are even laws and responsibilities that are well-defined for Accountants, Doctors, Architects, Civil Engineers.

      All of those are traditional "elite" professions of the lower upper class, dating back as far as they have existed (centuries or longer). They all have traditionally had / required membership into some sort of guild-type organi

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Entrope ( 68843 )

      https://www.acm.org/code-of-et... [acm.org]

      TL;DR: The Association of Computing Machinery has published exactly the kind of code of ethics that you claim doesn't exist for software.

      If you don't like that one, consider this one from IEEE: https://www.ieee.org/about/cor... [ieee.org]

    • We like pairs of duties and privileges.

      We distrust "rights," which tend to be absolute and absolve the user of the corresponding responsibilities.

  • Well, I think licenses are unethical. (Score:3)

    by BAReFO0t ( 6240524 ) on Sunday January 24, 2021 @09:22AM (#60985314)

    Because it is literally artificial scarcity (a crime) using monopolism (a crime), for the purpose of racketeering (a crime), even if not used for the robbery (a crime) it is usually used for.

    Now what?

  • I think it hits exactly the right assholes exactly where it hurst them. Hyper-egoistical psychopaths, aka, according to research, ye average Americans :)

    Now watch them totally not "ethical moderate" me away according to their own "ethics" of disliking me. ^^
    Fuckin' hypocrites.

  • Ethical People Movement (Score:3)

    by Some Guy ( 21271 ) on Sunday January 24, 2021 @09:43AM (#60985356)

    How about we launch an Ethical People Movement and just teach ethics to people. Or we could start somewhere easier and teach how to treat people with dignity & respect.

    It's a human problem, not a legal one.

  • Anyone who cheers on de-platforming and "private" censorship can hardly complain about this. This is the logical conclusion.

    BTW, that's what "totalitarianism" actually means - politics encompasses the totality of life, no corner can be allowed to escape.

    If they can cancel people who you don't like, then they can cancel you too. And they will, next week, if not this week.

    Don't use Facebook or Twitter? Or, er, AWS (getting a bit harder to dismiss the problem, but keep trying ...)? Well, you probably use s

  • We all know it's wrong as this stuff is inhaled into mass surveillance states. Some of this, though, seems like just mundane policy differences.

    Be careful with that. Some activists want to use bait and switch. Who can possibly object to not using open software by North Korea?

  • Won't address the worst abusers. (Score:3)

    by HiThere ( 15173 ) <charleshixsn.earthlink@net> on Sunday January 24, 2021 @10:25AM (#60985492)

    The problem is that governments can give themselves immunity to prosecution under violation of license terms. Usually, though, they just refuse to hear such a complaint. And that second approach also works for politically connected people/corporations/companies/....

    You'd say "but at least it will stop some abusers", but it will also stop a lot of contributors. Even the GPL has trouble that way. This is a rehash of an argument from the 1970's or '80's.

  • Would this prevent this software from being used in Cryptocurrency projects (illegal in ~20 countries)?

  • Already exist: Crockford, No-Evil, MIT License (Score:3)

    by fennec ( 936844 ) on Sunday January 24, 2021 @12:42PM (#60985992)
    I'm a FOSS approver in my (large) company, and essentially we are not allowed to use libs with such kind of license regardless of its usefulness or license terms. The problem is that "evil" or "ethical" is too much of a blurry term that can't be clearly defined by a lawyer. So essentially it means that no large company will take the risk of using such licensed libs. That may be the goal, but I doubt it would eventually bring good to the world.

  • Don't tell them about fire and the wheel (Score:3)

    by Subm ( 79417 ) on Sunday January 24, 2021 @12:51PM (#60986028)

    > open source has become ubiquitous, and is now being leveraged by bad actors for mass surveillance, racist policing, and other human rights abuses all over the world. The OES believes that the open-source community must evolve to address the magnitude and complexity of today's social, political, and technological challenges

    I hope no one tells them about fire and the wheel and how criminals have learned to use them.

Slashdot Top Deals

Were there fewer fools, knaves would starve. - Anonymous

Close