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.

Comments

Re:Good intentions, but...

[EverDense]

Yeah buy Amnesty are not interested in improving human rights, only promoting their own political agenda.

Oh boy, you are SO right...

"Amnesty International's vision is of a world in which every person enjoys all of the human
rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human
rights standards. Our mission is to undertake research and action focused on preventing and
ending grave abuses of the rights to physical and mental integrity, freedom of conscience and
expression, and freedom from discrimination, within the context of our work to promote all
human rights."

Complete BASTARDS, aren't they?!

...and you just know those facists in HUMAN RIGHTS organistations world-wide, are
going to use this SOFTWARE LICENSE, to exploit the third world.

Re:BSD license was political

[DaveAtFraud]

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.

Well, that should have included the 'State of Israel' since that too is an Apartheid country.

Yeah, the Israelis tend to discriminate against those that are trying to kill them. BTW, I actually started to feel somewhat sympathetic toward the Palestinians until they started randomly murdering people. As far as I'm concerned, they are lucky the Israelis haven't nuked them (yet).

Oops, there goes MY karma.

I can't take it anymore

[jtdubs]

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

Re:seriously ..

[Zapdos]

You assume too much. You opinion is wrong, and you are giving examples without statistics. Consider that many dates are accompanied with forced, non-consentual (sometimes violent) sex. Yes, that's what we in the west usually call date rape.