Slashdot Mirror
New License Forbids Human Rights Violations?
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.
OSS is freedom!
add another thing to the list of unenforcable liscense provisions...
Exactly what OSS needs, more licensing politics. I'm waiting for the GNU/Vegan license.
Meaningless. ...builds on Free Software licenses but adds clauses to "promote fundamental human rights of end-users".
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?
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Who will decide whether a piece of software will "promote fundamental human rights of end-users"?
HR is cool, the world needs it badly.
Just work also for the human duties, ok?
There can be no right without a duty to achieve it.
People want results without sacrifice. That cannot be.
Those who make the law will always declare themselves to be above it.
Fuck Slashdot
With all due respect, anyone commiting breaches of human rights has more to worry about legally than conditions in software licenses. Such breaches are illegal already, this license adds nothing new.
"This software specificall encourages communism, homosexualism, no-good tree hugging and ungodly worship?"
Oh! The humanity!
You can't go to a US prison for hacking because US prisons allow rape, which is a human rights violation.
For those deeply involved in politics, this is a good idea
Wait, what? I for one am deeply involved in politics, and this is obviously a horrible idea.
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 :-)).
Sex - Find It
Ok, but this really does nothing besides exclude the governments of China and those big, multinational cooperatations. But China doesn't care and will use it if they damn well please. And those cooperations can fight in court as to whether or not they are 'promoting' human rights of end users. SO I guess it doesn't do anything, really.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Who's idea of human rights do we use?
boldly going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse
But I don't think this is compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines (specifically the "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor" clause). Software needs to be compatible with the DFSG to be included in Debian, so this "HESSLA" may not be useful unless the software is dual-licensed under something like the GPL, but that defeats the purpose of using the "HESSLA" in the first place.
Well congrats to whoever thought of this noble idea, but how exactly do they plan on enforcing it? Heh, seems like one of those "laws" that are just conveniently overlooked.
The Welkin: Online Music Reviews
"promote fundamental human rights of end-users"
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...
They can make a new license but can not get 6/4 done?
License agreements are complicated enough - too complicated much of the time. I recommend taking a stand against "license bloat."
Yet Another Pointless License
Imagine someone setting up a web board, licensed as described. And this one circumventet girl from Somalia surfs by and signs up the week before she is forced to enter a marriage with a man her fater chose.
Poor girl - But, hey! License violation!
I agree that it is meaningless -- so I have an alternative idea...
Ransom It For Peace!
#1. Develop a good piece of software.
#2. Put a ransom 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!
Many people, myself included, have always suspected that the "open-source" movement (sometimes known deceptively as "free software") was really using their supposed belief in "freedom" to promote their political beliefs. But up until now, they have cleverly concealed their subversive ideas beneath the veneer of seemingly apolitical licenses.
But now, through the success of linux, apache, pine and other open-source software, they have snuck their products into the mainstream, and they have at last revealed their true colors. First they will require users to promote "human rights", but if they can put that in the license, what will be next? Will users of this software be forbidden from owning firearms? Will use by America's armed forces, who are protecting us from terrorism, be prohibited? Will all users of the software be required to support al-Qaeda's barbaric, cowardly terrorist acts? When does it end.
I hope Americans will carefully consider the consequences the next time they download "open-source" software like the bind DNS server or Netscape web browser -- it may seem like a good deal now, but as we have seen with the 9/11 attacks, the real costs could be incalculable.
They should put a anti-spam clause in the license.
This software can not be used to create and/or send unsolicited email.
This is the first EULA I have ever taken the time to actually read, mostly due to the premise being so completely un-enforceable as to be laughable. Oh wait, I did laugh.
In short, the license does anything but promote human rights. Rather, it discriminates against some humans in favor of others.
What if the Chinese government decides to use a piece of software with the afforementioned license (despite its own human rights abuse record)? Do you really think Red China is going to quiver over a licensing agreement written by a bunch of geeks in a foreign land that has no legal say in China's sovereignty?
Yet Another Pointless Post
Although I'm all for the freedom to create and choose licenses, this will create problems if this type of thing becomes common.
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.
My next sig will be ready soon, but friends can beat the rush!
Oh well...
p.s. Hacktivismo can release their software under any terms they want. If you don't like it, don't use it.
Well there goes the Free Software Forces of Evil Organization (FSFEO). It was fun while it lasted...
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
Err, guys, if you want to promote ideologies by including them in your software licenses, you'd better have some useful software to start with.
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!"
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
I doubt a group thats torturing/killing people is going to worry much about violating a software license. I can see the indictment now, "6 million crimes against humanity, and 1 violation of a software license".
Seems that this is more of an attempt to clear the conscious of the authors. And perhaps install a safety net incase someone sues the authors as an accessory to the violations.
Tom
I think what we have here, both in the licensing issue writen-of in the main post, but also in the subsequent discussion, is the age old dilemma of too much or too little. People will be consistently unhappy, terms of an agreement are either too loose, or too restrictive. Words tend to be an imperfect means of defining anything. More often than not, interpretation always occurs and therefore misunderstanding will often occur. Nothing has changed. Contracts have been disputed since humans were capable of making them, whether by handshake or signature (and sometimes blood.) Get used to it, it's humanity, and it's only going away when we destroy ourselves. (Not that we need to head in that direction by anymeans.)
"For those deeply involved in politics, this is a good idea, but Free Software Licenses have traditionally placed no restrictions on use."
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.
n/t
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
-
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
...and the OpenBSD folks:o/~ Join us now and share the software
Trumped by article 30 :
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
Soylent Green is in line with the current GNU license, and the OpenBSD people support this fine processed meat.
It's pointless anyway. Politics and humanity are largely lost on Slashdotters. Which is unfortunate, seeing as how the intelligent ones should and can be the ones to make an actual difference, rather than a purely symbolic one...
Moderation totals that amuse me for one of my posts: Flamebait=1, Insightful=2, Funny=2, Overrated=1, Underrated=1
Putting aside the BSD license for a second, perhaps it would be more in keeping with Freedom 0 to deny development licences for immoral purpose. In other words, if you want to use an program managed by such a license, as is, to support torture, or manage a censorship program, go ahead. But should you wish to modify such code to support such nefarious activities, you had better start coding yourself. Or you can snag a existing project from OpenBSD or FSF....
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.)
I really like the way VIM dealt with this issue-- basically saying "If you like this software, please donate to the following charity..."
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."
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Part of capitalism is the right to set your own costs however low you want them to be. That includes giving your product away if you so desire. If you can't compete, that's your problem, not the problem of developers who decide to give things away.
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
Bullshiznit. A job's a privilege, NOT a right. While I hope he doesn't, my boss can, and should be able to, fire me at will...
I have the "right" to go find another job...
---
Information wants...you to shut your pie hole.
this person has it right...imagine every contributor to a project adding a restriction forbidding their particular peeve...something like mozilla or open office could end up with hundreds of lines of restrictions -- "thou shalt not eat tuna", "thou shalt not eat at mcdonalds", "thou shalt not buy products at walmart".
A ridiculous precedent.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
I was being sarcastic about the US and its 'wonderful' constitution, i know that we're a big human rights violator. I watch the nightly news, how could i not know.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
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.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
AI continues to exhibit a discriminatory bias against the US. Isn't discrimination against the whole idea of human rights?
...but I was wondering where exactly does it say in the US Constitution or when does anyone have the rigth to revoke the basic human rights from someone who has violated the basic human rights of another? Seriously, I really think people confuse vengeance for justice sometimes.
That said, I really have no strong stance on the Death Penalty, because isn't putting someone in jail for their lives, also a violation of their basic human right to be free?
Anyways, I would think that if I was guilty and sentenced to jail w/o the possibility of parole, I'd rather be painlessly sent to death by having a needle in my arm, rather than living in jail for the rest of my life.
why run from Vincenzo?
I respectfully suggest that you're wrong. That competition from non-employment sources does not, by itself, abolish a category of jobs. I suggest too that abolishing a category of jobs does not imply removing the right to work, that someone with the ability to become a software developer may put their intellect to a wide range of fields. I suggest too that employed software developers will be required regardless of whether there is a pay-for-right-to-use model of software development in existance because certain projects, particularly those used in house and for custom systems, will never be able to attract hobbiest programmers.
Nobody will be prevented from getting a job because of this licence.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Don't forget that this liscense forbids use by the U.S. government or the republican party.
Is there anything in there about producing anything or providing any actual useful work in exchange for all of these goodies?
In china, you can get all the abortions you want! They don't even cost anything!
(note: that was sarcasm)
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Part of capitalism is the right to set your own costs however low you want them to be. That includes giving your product away if you so desire. If you can't compete, that's your problem, not the problem of developers who decide to give things away.
Capitalism onyl works if it assumes that people will want to be reimbursed in some way for their work. People working for free, while it really is a hunky-dory idea that gives me the warm fuzzies, is bullshit. Kids in college living in mommy & daddy's basement giving away their time for free definitely throw things out of whack. How in the hell are people who *do* have a mortgage and a family to pay for supposed to compete with that? And, let's say that these OSS kids put a bunch of software developers & companies out of business... are those really the people that we should be relying on for software? People who have no stake in it whatsoever?
Unfortunately, the "Hacktivismo" license, like the GPL, contains mechanisms whose intent is to destroy, or preclude the formation or success of, software businesses. It does this by preventing them from being able to use the code in the way that most benefits them: by creating commercial software with the code.
That is to say, the GPL (and apparently this licence as well, though i only skimmed over it) require that software derived from GPL-ed code have the full source code openly available to the public. The author of the post is operating under the assumption that these licences have the intent to destroy/prevent the success/formation of software businesses. This is incorrect, but it may indeed have that effect (there are companies, such as Red Hat, et al., that manage to make a fair profit off open-source software, but many companies/persons do not). I agree with you, though (that is, i disagree with the parent).
You don't want software to help the military because it helps killing people? I say, helping development for the military is a way to stop the military from killing people. The smarter and more accurate the military technology, the fewer unintended deaths and collateral damage. Much new military research is on how to stop people without killing them. Help the military advance and get away from using Big Dumb Bombs.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
amnesty internation is populated by wanna-be dictators and godless socialists who still can't fucking believe communism failed. they're a bunch of heads-in-their-asses ultra liberals who think people who rape and murder children should be free to walk the streets instead of being executed, because it couldn't possibly have been the murdering bastard's fault - evil western society turned him into a child-raping killer. all the professional busbodies like amnesty internation, greenpeace, the wwf and the rest of the fringe eco-terrorists should either get a fucking grip on reality, or save the earth from overpopulation and pollution by offing their own damned selves.
I seem to remember it having a clause prohibiting its use by the military or some other '70s era anti-government balderdash. Might still have it for all I know but just who uses serial lines any more? Obsolete program and obsolete politics.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
Soon as I saw the story on the front page I knew what awaited inside. Hundreds of posts from zitty geeks trying to be punker-than-thou by coming up with ever-more-obscure namedropping to make up for their lack of real style (or to pretend that they are actually old enough to have been involved). Drop the pretension kiddos. We all know that your Blink 182 CD is older than your copy of Bollocks.
I love how a whole new level of conformity has been created by the average bozo's efforts at individuality. It might almost work if your personal definition of individuality didn't depend so heavily on how you present yourself to others. I mean, what's the sense of being into bullshit like [insert pseudo-non-mainstream hobby here] if you can't talk about it to make yourself superior to your peers?
Kinda sounds like the Linux crowd, huh? "I'm so ALTERNATIVE by patching my kernel every day while you brainwashed Windows sheep meander in unenlightened tedium." Funny to think that if you had back all the time you spent tweaking and patching (for no good reason other than to say you have the latest version), you wouldn't know what to do with the workstation on your desk.
*sigh*
excuse the rant. caffiene has yet to be digested.
Thanks Hacktivismo, I almost released my Nuclear Missle Dev Kit under the BSD license! Thank you for showing me the light!
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 . 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.
Working for necessity's mother.
Where is the clause forbidding use by the South African police?
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
I don't eat anything that casts a shadow.
My friend is a third level vegan. She won't eat anything with eyes, so potatoes are out.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
They must be the first organization that promotes a political agenda annoying people of all ideologies and political persuassions.
They regularly criticize countries like China, North Korea, Cuba, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Russia and any other that has some disgraceful record in respecting the most basic rights of individulas.
Please expose here you fabolous insight in how annoying everybody in the political spectrum furthers any agenda. Oh yes, and by the way Mr Brilliant, tell us which agenda is that.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
No nation/organization will ever admit they are violating human rights in any form. Hence they will be convinced they can legally use your software.
The Chinese deny.
The US denies any violation of human rights at Guantanamo, Camp X-Ray.
Pretty much everyone denies wrongdoing. Of course it is much easier to spot someone else's "bad deeds".
--- Eat my sig.
Ok. So you're a hacker who makes a nice tool,
under this new 'human rights' license.
Now, somebody comes along who has the ability to
violate basic human rights using this tool.
Do you *really* want a piece of that guy? Likely, the violator is the secret police of a
nation state. Do you suppose your little click-through warning about human rights is
going to make a difference?
This is the vogue dancing of programming.
+1 funny; +1 insightful
I find it interesting that Hacktivismo was/is one of the members of Cult of the Dead Cow. I had a hard time fully following his rambling License (leave it to lawyer wannabies to craft long winded bullsh_t) but it does, I think, prohibit software designed to spy on anyone.
The Cult of the Dead Cow is most famous for Back Orifice, a so called remote access tool, which was mostly used as a Trojan to secretly invade, and thus spy on, NT networks.
He and his fellow members had no problem destroying my right to privacy in the past and now wants us to belive that he thinks this is wrong. Is this a change of heart or is he just a hypocrite?
Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
No. All the GPL says is that if you give them binaries, you have to give them source as well. I've bought GPLed software before - Cygwin's tweaked version of GCC - because it was better than the alternatives for what I wanted to use it for.
Though the issue of businesses based on GPLed software is an odd one. Selling free software itself is a very new idea, essentially only a few years old. So, it's obvious a lot of businesses are going to fail. Failure happens all the time in the business world, software isn't, and shouldn't be, an exception. Many early names in the microcomputer world are now long gone, though I think most people would agree that PCs are, by and large, a success.
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
IMO Utopia would come closer if more people tried to be "clear-sighted and rational" --do you think sarcasm and flames are a better approach?
The EULA in question violates one of the time-honored values of open-source. To suggest that people objecting to it must 1) despise the "mere programmer" and 2) have no morality--wow! You're wasting your time on /., AC, you could be pulling down big bucks writing speeches for politicians.
Oops, a little sarcasm just crept into my post too, didn't it? Sorry about that, but it is contagious.
Making trouble today for a better tomorrow...
> Vote, and don't forget who and what you're
> voting for.
I presume that you live in a country where there is an actual choice.
Here in North America, we have the US with its twin party system and whenever a third choice shows up, all hell breaks loose.
If you feel like choosing between the Coke and Pepsi party truly is a choice, hten you deserve it.
And in Canada, the next prime minister of country is already known 18 months before. (This, by the way, is NOT a joke. Just the reality of the canadian system.)
But at least you voted. You have done your part for democracy oblivious to the choices you were offered. (bet you a 20$ that the other moron shrub will be nominated by 2016. You figure that there has to be at least one election in between Bush coronations.)
Now be a good sheep and let them shear you..
Why stop there? Demand that users become vegetarians, go to gay rights rallies, protest globalism, drive hybrid cars and hug everyone in the whole wide world.
#1. Develop a good piece of software.
#2. Choose any currently ongoing war.
#3. Put a ransom on your software.
#4. Once the war has been settled peacefully -- you open-source it!
Ok, it has to be a pretty good piece of software for those warmongers to make peace because of it, but when has a challenge stopped a real hacker?
It's kind of a brainy idea, but the mere idea of using legal nitpicks as a tool to get people to treat each other like human beings highlights the pitiful state our world is in. I would hate, for example, to think that the DMCA was all that stood between me and getting lynched.
(c) 2002 Anonymous Coward
While using this software:
You may not harm any small animals, especially ones that might be considered "cute" by the female population.
If you are in a position to create laws of any type, said laws cannot be created without the approval of Mr. Anonymous Coward.
blah.
What a great idea. Perhaps software licenses can solve all of the worlds problems where previous laws/international diplomacy have failed! YAY for license writers with over-inflated egos.
Did it ever occur to you that licensing software for money isn't a real business?
Did it ever occur to you that licensing software for money isn't a real business?
No. That's a really, really stupid idea, and I try to avoid really, really stupid ideas when I can. If I'm gonna spend time building something, and other people want it, then I sell it to them. It's called a business.
When people's Human Rights are violated, it's usually by people with guns - the police, armed forces of the state, local militias with machetes, and much worse.
These people aren't intimidated by your licensing lawyers coming to hassle them.
If you want to protect & improve Human Rights, there are many better ways to do this. You may even have some success.
Brett, why do you keep trying to push this line of reasoning? The GPL doesn't discriminate against commercial developers any more than any other license does. How could a developer build a successful commercial program through, say, Microsoft's "Shared Source Initiative?" They can't. They can't create commercial software with Windows code.
/., so I'm down with that. But if you're being serious, I'd really like to hear your concerns about the GPL, without the flamebait.
As to the claim that the GPL's "intent is to destroy, or preclude the formation or success of, software businesses," Red Hat seems to be doing well enough. Therefore, the GPL has failed in furthering its own intent, and you have nothing to complain about.
Calling the GPL a "human rights violation" is a first for you, and smacks of trollish intentions. But this is
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
I'm wondering how these people plan on enforcing their license? Say Country X uses their software, and callously makes policial dissidents make wallets and watch reruns of MASH all day long (after it got mauldin).
Exactly how do they plan on making Country X stop using their software? Show up on the doorsteps of the palace/king's mansion/capitol building and ask really forcefully to stop? Irony defined, would be those kids thrown into the clink also, to make wallets and watch MASH reruns.
Countries that regularly commit human rights violations usually don't sweat the little stuff like some 16 year old kid not wanting that country to use his software.
In addition to the rather obvious non-free nature of this license (because the field of endeavour issue, because it mandates strong cryptography and forbids "filtering", even because of horrible vaguety, etc) this license has more problematic clauses, some of which are (in no particular order):
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 site you link to, ninenine.com, is a porn site, non? Offering "free" porn through referral links to pay sites, non? In essence, a business model different from traditional porn selling. In many ways, GPLed software is much the same way. There are many businesses, such as redhat, making money with GPLed software, only most of their money is made in a different way than with direct retail or business to business sales. Instead, they make money through support, through sponsorships, and through sales of related products. Yes, to some it's unfair, but capitalism, and the free market, isn't fair. It never has been, and never will be.
And businesses are more accountable, more reliable? If you haven't realized, businesses go under all the time, with little to no accountability to anyone. Also, who's to stop the company you bought your product from from deciding to stop supporting your product? When it comes right down to it, businesses are just as falliable, just as unreliable as people are.
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
Back in the '80s there was this Canadian who went by the handle "Rodey" (we were both on BIX, Byte [magazine] information exchange) or something similar that came up with some backup software - I think it basically enhanced and replaced the original DOS backup/restore.
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.
I promise sincerely to obey this licence deal, just like I do with all those licence agreements I see on the pirate copies of other software I use.
I'm still kind of proud, in an obscure way, about that.
Absolutely nothing wrong about it. Hold your head up high. Be proud!
But don't think for an instant that such a license could ever be Free or Open Source.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A583 08-2002Nov30.html
It would be nice to think that a software license would put tools out of reach of our rulers.
Source code is expression, it's speech. You want that kind of speech to invade repressive regimes. Sure, they can alter it and use it for "bad" purposes, but they can do that anyway (the contract law and legal system that enforces those licenses is under their control). But more important is that they look at the code and maybe determine that their efforts at restricting information flow are hopeless. Or maybe they'll use the software to provide information access to at least a restricted elite that can then work towards change.
So unless I read this wrote, they want to add restrictions to prevent restrictions of "fundamental human rights of end-users." Sounds like a good idea at first, but the solution of adding more restrictions to promote rights sounds an awful lot like the way Microsoft promotes their Digital Rights/Restrictions Management and I dare say that has done nothing to promoter the rights of users.
A "human-rights' angle, eh pad're well that's just peachy, considering there ain't no-such-thing as a "human right". Human desires and wants and lusts oh yes, certainly ... but a lust is NOT a 'right'. ... but the law does NOT create them. Historically, no such set of behaviors exist world-wide. And nations relate purely through power ( see Thucydides for details ). Practically speaking, "rights" stop at a nations borders. Deal with it, pad're "human rights"? = pure Stalinist bullsh*t.
"Rights" are created by a social contract, that-is a set of untutored behaviors natively expressed and self-enforced within some geographic region. Aztec cannibalism and Yankee free-speech are two examples of such social-contract rights. Get the picture, pad're? Those behaviors (rights) considered important enough are often codified in law [ ie. the collective GUN ]
The cool thing about human rights violations is that they are something your political opponents engage in, never something you do.
-- Terry
My own views are largely lost on other people. Oh well, it's their own fault if they just wont accept my wisdom. The world would be a beautiful place to live, if only everyone was like me!
I always kind of hoped a bit from [the band] Propagandhi's liner notes would be turned into a software license:
Absolutely all shit to do with Propagandhi, Inc., its' conglomerates or subsidiaries, is absolutely anti-copyright.1993... How the fuck can you stake a claim of ownership to intangible patterns of sound?! Duplicate, imitate, replicate, eradicate, masterbate, Merciful Fate (for non-profit, non-fascistic purposes) at will, shitface. We don't give a crap. However, Mike/Fat Wreck Chords paid for this recording, and subsequently "owns" the "rights" (whatever the fuck that means) to it, so he may very well have a different point of veiw regarding this issue, and will likely reserve the right to sue the dingleberries out of your bum. Whatever. All mistakes, fuck-ups, production flaws and tuning discrepencies are on purpose and are furthermore copyright 1993 Who Gives A Fuck? Productions. Ha.
Oh, I, too, am under the belief that the average Arab woman is getting the short end of the stick.
But what gives us the right to say that? Are we so self-righteous that we may say, "Our way of life is superior to yours!"? Are we allowed to destroy cultures because they don't live up to our own expectations?
Apparently, because of our military strength, we are. So in the end, it becomes once more a game of might makes right. We enslave people under the guise of democracy, we destroy all that they hold dear because we are the shining knights of the Crusades, bringing our own brand of knowledge and wisdom at the bloody point of the sword.
Tell me again how we are so correct, and they are so wrong? If they're guilty of violating human rights, then so are we. Indeed, we're no better than the dolts who went around burning people for heresy a few hundred years back.
Not true at all. It also states that works containing even the smallest amount of the code must be licensed at no charge. In short, given away.
It has made slight profits during a few quarters, but over its lifetime it has been grossly unprofitable. See their Form 10-Q on Edgar.
Of course it does beg the question: ``Would anyone who is willing to torture people give a flying fuck about your feel-good license?'' I belive that the answer would most likely be no. And so why bother?
That's dead wrong. All of Microsoft's development tools come with Microsoft code that developers are free to use to create commercial software. This includes large collections of "controls" that save the programmer days -- if not weeks or months -- of GUI programming time.
Ironically, Microsoft's terms for the use of these products are less onerous than those of the GPL. Commercial software developers can incorporate Microsoft's controls in their own products, and then license their work for money. They cannot do the same with GPLed code.
If you're willing to hang someone upside-down from their toenails, would you really care about the license terms of some software?
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?
- I don't need to go outside, my CRT tan'll do me just fine.
HactivismO (O for Oprah) License
THIS is a licence that will do as Microsoft claims - it will devour other licenses, is addition to many twinkies!
somewhere in the EULA for the next version of KDevelop.... ...By using this software, you agree to turn to the KDE side and forever renounce GNOME. Furthermore, you agree that any end-user of any software product developed with KDevelop will be bound to the same terms of use...
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
I don't know what you have been smoking, but most free software is not written to bring people together.
I can say that I did not write my free software to help the third world. I did it because I learned from it and I made a living in the time, so I figured, if it's paid for, you can have it.
Writing software does not help the third world, by the way. Not exploiting them with amoral and abominable patent and "intellectual property" law, copyright bullshit and licensing crap, that would help the third world. Nullifying the debt we forced on them with our amoral patent and copyright bullshit, that would help the third world. Giving them free access to medication, stopping to take their natural resources, refining them and selling the result back at inflated prices, that would help the third world.
Software isn't even on the radar. Because there is not enough money to buy computers. They do buy some computers nonetheless, but they do it by adding to their substantial debt.
It's a shame that people have to pay for education and medication. Because medication is commercial, we have statistics that show that 80% of the medication does not even cure anything! Not only do we exploit the third world, we exploit our own population.
What good does free software do to some African starving or having AIDS? Please look up literacy statistics on the third world. What good does software do if the people can't read?
This "civil rights" license is bullshit. I can't blame them, I would be happy if I could cloud my mind from those issues like that. Unfortunately, I can't.
To make myself perfectly clear: what if I put "this software may not be used by US citizen while George W Bush is president" in my software licenses? I personally think that GW Bush needs to go ASAP, but do you honestly think that clause in a license would help? At all?
Damn if it went so far as supporting human rights, then The Gimp's UI would have to finally be completely redesigned. There's a form of torture right there.
This summer during my extended period of unemployment I developed a couple of applications . One was a Java-based Web server and one was a Java-based Web spider.
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.
[Insert pithy quote here]
maybe they are about the wrong things then.
Our software could go on baby mulching machines and all we want is "credit"! "Baby Mulching Machine by Theo"? Getting credit is more important than not having baby mulching machines?
Einstien in the anti-verse: "I don't mind you using my ideas to create gigantic bombs, but I insist my name be printed on every one".
This idea is a bit pointless, perhaps, but frankly I like the idea that oppressive regimes may have another reason they could be pulled to court if they happen to be submitting to copyright. A country like China or the USA would like to say they obey IP law, and that would expose the possibility that their human rights records might be brought up in court. It's actually much more important than "credit" and is also the real problem in the world today, and a bunch of pampered americans -can- be expected to know this.
-pyrrho
Red Hat-equipped F-22 fighers continue to patrol the no-hack zone above northern and southern Iraq, as the world awaits Iraq's Dec. 8th software license report. FSF president Richard Stallman declared yesterday that Iraq would be in "material breach" of its licenses if the Dec. 8th report was incomplete; MSFT chairman Bill Gates dissented, however, saying that the report alone would not be sufficient to breach the HESSLA license.
Yup, I can just imagine 'em thinking, "Hmm we violate human rights. So it's illegal for us to use this software. Damn .. back to websurfing".
Lets add a no-sodomy clause to the GPL too. Anyone from the State of Georgia can tell you how enforceable THAT one will be. Protecting human rights is a Good Thing to be sure but do we honestly expect software licenses to be said protectors?
From my limited studies of Law, I recall that there is a legal principle that precludes the addition of frivolous or unrelated clauses (at Common law, not necessarily Contract law).
The inclusion of something obviously unrelated to the core intention is enough to invalidate the entire law.
(Again, may not apply to contracts)
Ask a lawyer.
Open Source is political by its very nature.
"Screw you commie!"
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
Isn't that redundant? :)
I go through all the trouble of getting together the one billion OpressionBots, and now I have to recode everything using .NET server. Well, there goes my damn schedule.
And come on... you wonder why the OSS movement hasn't caught on? Do you realize how much money Evil Overlords invest in infrastructure?
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.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
I can't put up with all of this bullshit from the FSF about how their licenses are "free" and everyone mumbling about how they are without "restrictions." It's absolute bullshit.
There are no licenses without restrictions. That's why you put a license on it; to restrict things.
Public domain is free. GPL is not free. BSD/MIT are not free, but are far closer than the GPL.
Come on people, this is obvious. The BSD license, and especially the MIT license place far fewer restrictions on the end-user than the GPL or the LGPL or any of the FSF's licenses. The only thing I've found with less restrictions than them is the public domain. And isn't that a good measure of freedom? How many restrictions it places on those who accept it? More restrictions means less free, right?
The GPL is not "free" software. The LGPL is not "free" software. It's not free if it's enforced by a license. The GPL is enforced freedom, which is pretty much a contradiction. The GPL makes code free to do anything, other than become non-free. This is a restriction, and hence makes the code non-free.
Here are a few licenses are what restrictions they put on the end user.
Public Domain:
None
MIT License:
Original source, if redistributed, must include the original license.
GPL:
Original source, if redistributed, must include the original license.
Derivative work (modified source) must remain under the GPL.
Work linked against the source must be under the GPL.
Explain to me how, given this knowledge, the GPL can possibly consider itself to be "free" with a straight face?
Sometimes I wonder if more people would choose the MIT or BSD-style licenses if the FSF weren't busy shouting their GPL propoganda from the roof-tops of the insane asylums that most of them belong in.
Justin Dubs
Then don't fucking use GPL code if that's a problem.
Yeah right, like that's going to stop the military from using me if I get drafted. No matter how many licenses I tape to my body I'm screwed.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
"If G-d 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."
More generally, if G-d feels that human life is so valuable, why does He kill people on an hourly basis?
To say that miscarriage justifies abortion, its artificial counterpart, is tantamount to saying that death justifies murder.
Personally, I am pro-choice when it comes to abortion and pro-life when it comes to murder, but your argument is simply vapid.
Further, it's not an argument against the anti-abortionists that some of them have weak/inconsistent arguments; after all, some of them don't. That's like saying that vegetarianism is stupid because some vegetarians wear leather.
If I had a dollar (OK, a thousand bucks) for every person who has posted a negative comment about this license (keep politics out of licenses, this is anti-democratic, blah whine blah whine...) AND has also posted something like "cracking software is wrong...if you don't like the license terms then don't use it, that would be stealing...just because M$ has crappy licenses doesn't mean you should steal their stuff...warez is bad, m'kay..." I would be a wealthy man indeed....
/.er strikes me as more of a "government should protect property and do nothing else" type. No one's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use this software (and if they are, then I'm sure the authors will make an exception for you).
It's simple. If you don't like the terms of the license, then don't use the fscking software! OK, if you're an anarchist I'll make an exception -- but the average
The only valid objections I've seen to this system are vagueness (which can be remedied by referencing a document with lots of case law behind it, like the US Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or whatever it is the European Union uses) and the idea that simpler licenses are better (fine -- then don't use software that has a license with too many clauses for your taste).
Some people think software and politics don't mix. Tell that to the folks behind the Great Firewall of China. Oh wait, you can't. I happen to think that software and handing over my hard-earned cash shouldn't mix. But they do.
Make cheese not war 8:)
FWIW, OpenBSD is based on code that was largely paid for by the US Military.
If they don't care about Human rights why would they be scared of the license Police?
There is an international decleration of human rights. I think that would be an authorative text, but there is no court for it and since free software is rarely related to war crimes, i think the ICC will not help out.
This sig is a true statement, but I cannot prove it.
and it was a good government. I'd worked on it for a long time. And these corporations came along and it was like bip-boop-beep.
And it was gone.
And I was bummed... 'Cause I had tried really hard to make it a good government... it had a bill of rights and everything. But I looked around and it was like, only grumpy old rich men running everything.
And I was really bummed, cause we had an election, and it didn't even matter.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
You're right, it is vague. I think pressure is always a good idea, but let's face it, nearly every country in the world is in Amnesty International's annual Human Rights Report.
Further, this acts like sanctions and we have to be careful about that. Sanctions can be good for applying pressure, but they can also backfire and cause more problems than they solve.
According to hollywood it's "stop or i'll shoot" hence capital punishment for running away.
they just had a wicca festival in my local town. About five christians came outside to protest (they were hoping for more) but gave up because of the miserable british weather :-)
"You won't allow the King to use your shields? Grow up, there will always be divinely mandated Kings with armies who will use whatever shields they want, and everyone except you likes the King, so shut up!"
Seriously tho, I disagree with many of the things listed in this license, but why shouldn't they write a license for the software they write, and for those who agree with them? If you all disagree so much, why not try and change the hacktivists' minds with rational arguments instead?
As has been said, the HR clauses are nice but unenforceable.
Still, they limit what the issuing group can produce or support in the future without contridiction--that is, they no longer have a goal of "software for anyone to do anything."
And this is going to be *important* in the future--software that tracks people, software that searches unencoded transmissions for key words, software that sends spam or automatically trolls adult-oriented sites for children. Or your local mafia database.
I guess I just want to say that it's time for the industry to grow a concience. ref: guns, tabacco, pharmacuticals.
At last a free software license much much larger than the GPL
I just want to see if I understand this... If I agree to this new EULA, and then commit acts such as genocide(not "of genocide," but genocide. I'm sure we all remember the Clinton administration's problems with the distinction.), homophobic or racial violence, kidnapping or reading some elses mail, I would not only be in violation of various city, county, state, federal, and international laws, but my software license is now void too? I admire their vision but this is a little ridiculous. These things are already crimes! Besides, there is another software company we all know an loathe, who has weird conditions in their EULA's. Remember how we feel about them!
"thou shalt not eat tuna", "thou shalt not eat at mcdonalds", "thou shalt not buy products at walmart".
I continue to be amazed at how some people can justify anything with the most trivial examples. It's not the same thing.
I think it sets a great precedent. And so what if someone says you can't use this software unless you don't eat at Rotten Ronnie's -- just don't use the software! Write your own, or use a competing project.
In the end, what people use will win out. Stupid licenses won't be accepted, and people will look elsewhere. Great licenses which promote the good of Earth's people and Earth itself will flourish if people understand what they're saying Yes to, and what they're saying No to as a result.
If I don't -know- the corporations business practices (which I don't), then I'm not implicitly supporting them. I buy their product because I see it on the shelf at the market, and I'm hungry for it -- not because they practice good business.
Likewise, I don't check items before I buy them to see if they're from China or not. My not checking implies nothing. "well if you don't care, then you must support them, cause if you didn't support them, then you wouldn't buy it". That's bad logic. I'd still buy a product from someone even if I didn't care for their views. I (hypothetically) have a friend that's a heroin addict -- my friendship with him doesn't imply that I advocate the use of heroin.
Bad logic round and round.
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.
When you buy a car, do you have to sign a EULA that you won't speed or use it in criminal activity?
When you buy a gun, do you have to sign a EULA that you will only use it in self defense or against defenseless four legged creatures?
When you buy a sprinkler system, do you have to sign a EULA that you will not use it to grow pot?
When you buy a phone, do you have to sign a EULA that you wont use it for DIAL-A-BABE?
When you buy a camera, do you have to sign a EULA that you won't use it for p0rn?
Then what makes software so special?
It was a program for file transfer over a modem, and rather important for it s time. It was free software before the term was defined, and had an restriction on use: "may not be used for military purposes". Real anti-militaristic software of the hippie area.
The "not for commercial purposes" wasn't just a hope that someone would bue a commercial license back then, as it usually is today. It was an anti-capitalistic message.
So this kind of politics through software is not new, I actually suspect that we have much less of it these days with the attempt to put more formal requirements on free (open source) software.
As far as his reason is concerned, it sounds like he we trying to explain the ontology of neurons and synapses by using the path of a ball as an example.
You should seriously check out some neural network demos written by students where they use simple neurons and perceptron configurations to essentially solve complex algebraic equations.
Lastly, you were very ready to pin these political students as short-sighted and narrow-minded, yet it seems like you put little to no effort to consider thier ideas. A person with an open-mind would have at least have asked someone if this tactic is going to do more harm than good. let alone give someone the opportunity to defend/explain it.
You might have some really good objections for not bundling politics and software licenses, so let us know what they are...
Reread your post, inform us WHY it's short-sighted. Explain WHY somethings need to be free from politics. Explain WHY these politics do more harm than good. Don't just flame with recycled ideas. Rationally explain it so even the biggest human rights hippie considers your ideas.
NOTE: I also like software when it's free from politics, but that doesn't keep me from appreciating both commercial and GNU software alike.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
(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).
I would think that the best instrument to define these terms would be the Geneva convention. Oh wait, it does...
Last time I checked, anyone not in a recognizable uniform can't be considered a lawful combatant. As such, they have at most limited protection under the Geneva Convention. If terrorists wore "I Love Bin Laden" T-Shirts when on operation, I'm sure the US government would have no objection to affording them all the protections mandated by the Geneva convention. But that would probably make it harder for them to slither onto airliners full of civilians...
Terrorism is asymmetric warfare. Asymmetric warfare cannot be fought using rules designed for symmetric warfare if one has any hope of preserving something that remotely resembles civilization. The nice folks who wrote the Geneva Convention realized this, and consequently wrote it to exclude terrorists...
I know this thread is probably dead, but I'm gonna chime in anyway. You're all wrong. Everything is not political, and it is at the same time.
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.
Please tell me what he knows that I don't.
IIRC, In ancient Rome, a man was considered a minor until age 30 (and was then supposed to marry a 15 year old girl). In the US there are a few ages to consider:
12? - I believe is the age a minor can be tried as an adult for murder (someone check, I can only find a news article citing a 14 year old tried as an adult).
16 - Can drive in California
17 - Can watch adult films (NC17 Rating)
18 - Can vote, and be tried as an adult for nearly all crimes (except alcohol, which you are tried as an adult for "minor in posession"). The media can release your name if indicted of a crime.
21 - Can drink
25 - Auto insurance rate adjustment. Can rent cars from Hertz and many others (Enterprise still rents to 18+). Also, the age at which you are considered an adult to train an under 18 driver with a permit in California.
26 - Too old to be drafted (see www.sss.gov)
Tada!
More to the point: if the military and its controllers believe they can wage war without harming "Westerners", then it is more likely to do so. But I am opposed to harming people, even if by accident of birth, they were born somewhere else. So an "effective" military is not in my interest.
Freedom is also allowing other to have their opinions, and limit the use of their work.
.... VOTE!
.... choose who should have you efinincial backing
.... express your opinion, even though you may loose Karma points :)
...) decide they are "illegal"...
If somebody want's to limit the users of their work to abiding to Human Rights, the please let them (Although people who violate Human Right are not likely to thin twice about violating a Software licence).
I seriously doubt, that any Open Project would gain much popularity if it contains restrictive licences, which do not align with the OSS culture.
BTW: Remember, that Freedom is also a responsibility. For the "Free World" to work in a "fair" way, you need to express your opinions where it matters:
1. political
2. economic
3. daily
DISCLAIMER: of course, some actions/views are so generally unacceptable that we (as country, culture or
SLOGEN [ http://ungdomshus.nu : Sebastian cover music]
Keep your Eye on the Ball,
Your Shoulder to the Wheel,
Your Nose to the Grindstone,
Your Feet on the Ground,
Your Head on your Shoulders.
Now... try to get something DONE!
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...