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.
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.
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.
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
Who's idea of human rights do we use?
boldly going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse
"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...
License agreements are complicated enough - too complicated much of the time. I recommend taking a stand against "license bloat."
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.
An interesting counter-argument would be that those who use it to commit 'civil right' violations are probably discriminating against 'Fields of Endeavor' -- so you're discriminating against discriminators, if that makes sense.
________________________________________________
suwain_2
No, it really doesn't make sense. If you discriminate against someone simply because they discriminated against you, it doesn't matter who did it first, you are both discriminating. If you choose to love all people without discriminating, you cannot exclude people just because they don't love you back.
I think this license is a nice idea but completely unenforceable. Even if it were, don't you think it would be kind of a secondary (er, tertiary) concern? I mean c'mon: "Hey! Stop raping 4 year-old girls! Stop using slave labour! Oh, and by the way, we are revoking your license to play Ogg files."
Karma: Incomprehensible (Mostly affected by posting at +5, reading at -1, and metamoderating everything unfair.)
#5. ?????
#6 Profit!!!
Just kidding. Seriously, you have a great idea, metacosm.
This license is a joke. First off, how can you include such a vague term as "violations of human rights" in a legal agreement in the first place without including pages and pages that define it... you can find someone somewhere that will argue anything is a violation of human rights (capitalism for one, and it's not hard to find people who will argue that).
Like the parent poster's, this is just more handwaving by people in an attempt to look like they care, but without any real action to back it up, it just looks like hypocrisy. It's kind of like all the useless legislation that gets passed not to fix a problem, but so that to the less-informed, the politicians LOOK like they are doing something.
Just more babble in a world that has too much babble and not enough deeds. Something as simple as helping out at the local food bank can make a difference. This is something I do that's easy and fun and you actually get to see the people you are helping (something that almost never happens in my career).
"Think globally, act locally." is a good philosophy in my mind, because that's the only way most of us can make a difference. This is much better than some stupid, if well-meant, misplaced manifesto in a software license.
I'd like to hear about more "hypercites". People who do lots of good, but don't go around making a big deal about it.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Open source has always been about bringing people together, regardless of their political viewpoints, in order to give others open, free, and high quality software.
The last thing open source needs is divisive political themes attached to products. "Use this only if you support homosexual marriages" ..."Only members of the NRA are allowed to contribute to this product"..."This product can only be used to promote the views expressed by Amnesty International."
Some things should be political, open source is not one of them.
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.
"Are the mass graves dug, yet?"
"Yes, sir, but we've encountered a problem. If we go through with this, it will invalidate our software licenses."
"Oh, really. I guess we'll have to reconsider this course of action, then."
Actually these kinds of marriages are a part of their culture,
...
So is murdering women who do not comply with their idea of "family honor".
and they are not trapped as you imply,
reread above reply.
these marriages actually work
did you, by any chance, consider that if all marriages work in a specific culture this is an indicator for lack of freedom ?
They all (Husband and Wife) are very happy,
well, this reminds me of this old story I once heard:
A man defects from the then-comunist eastern europe to the west.
His friends in the west ask him one day:
Q: How was the food there in the east ?
A: Can't complain.
Q: How did the police treat you ?
A: Can't complain.
Q: and what about the economy there ?
A: Can't complain.
Q: why the hell, then, did you defect ?
A: Well, here I can complain
This is not human rights violation, it is simply a cultural difference
This is what every bully outside of the west always say. "but we do it our way !".
Consider that pre-arranged marriage many times are accompanied with forced, non-consentual (sometimes violent) sex. Yes, that's what we in the west usually call rape . And woo to her if she doesn't smile afterwards.
But that's OK, Arab women aren't beaten, violated, or mutilated (circumcized) , they're just culturaly different.
but it's OK for them, ask them.
They can't complain.
Working for necessity's mother.
I don't think including a clause against the use of the software to violate someone else's human rights is the same thing as just enforcing a viewpoint. There's a non-trivial, not-slippery-sloped difference between using a cron job to run a torture device and using apache to publish racist propaganda.
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.
Open Source is political, in the strict sense of the term. Your problem is not with politics per se, but the kind of politics it should be allowed to support. The problem with such clauses in licenses is not that they are political, but that they require political judgements that have nothing to do with software and technology issues.
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.
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.
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
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.
Are you insane? Open Source not political? Have you ever read a license, or considered the implications of Free Software? Does it not strike you as political declaring that anybody may copy, modify and redistribute information free from restriction?
Free Software is by its very nature political. Everything is political. Your choosing to use your particular operating system has a political dimension, as does your choice of workplace, the food you eat, the clothes you wear. The sooner people realise this, and stop thinking politics is all about corrupt white men in government, or single issues, the better.
The more political hackers can become, the better IMO. If every hacker refused to get political we might as well just invite a few corporations to put great big padlocks on our doors and wipe our hard drives of anything that isn't certified by the Big Bill.
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.
Everything is NOT fucking political. What I choose to eat for breakfast is absolutely 1000% unpolitical. If you disagree, kindly point out the political considerations in my choosing tasty wheat this morning. Point out the politics of my choosing a left sock and a right sock to wear.
Actually, everything *is* political. Every decision you make has political ramifications, even if they're subtle. If your bowl of tasty wheat was produced by a corporation that pours industrial waste into the river, or uses vast amounts of political contributions to corrupt legislators into ignoring its illegal accounting practices, then you implicitly support those actions. If those socks are made by an international conglomerate that has moved its corporate headquarters to the Seychelles to avoid paying corporate income taxes, and shipped all of its manufacturing to third-world sweatshops, putting 30,000 people out of work, then you implicitly support them. If you eat fast food, you support the conditions of the factory farms that grow their beef. And so on.
Everything you buy, and, to a lesser extent, everything you do, has an effect on the rest of society and the rest of the world. You make your decisions based on what your conscience tells you is right or wrong. I don't buy products made in China, because I don't want to support a totalitarian government. I don't buy from Amazon or Walmart - I'd rather support independent local businesses. As an American, I buy American-made products whenever possible.
Yes, this is hard to do. Sometimes it's impossible, since 90% of consumer products seem to be made in China these days. You can't have a phone, drive a car, or use electricity without supporting massive, anticompetitive corporations. But small things make a difference. If everyone made the same choices, the world might change for the better.
I don't expect everyone else to agree, or to come to the same philosophical decisions. I would, however, like more people to think about their decisions and consider their implications. Maybe it seems silly. Maybe one individual decision is too small to make any difference. But it lets me sleep better at night, and that's the point.
(OTPersonalRant: There's no such thing as 1000% of anything. You can't give 110%. Please don't do this anymore. Thank you.)
What if life is just a side effect of some other process and God has no idea we exist?
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.
Because this would always occur:
American: Alright sir, here's yo go, remember, you need to promote human rights to use this product.
European: Right, we Europeans are very much in favor of human rights.
American: No no, you have to use *our* definition of human rights...you know...the right definition.
European: Wait, I thought we were using the European definition. Because, well, you Americans don't know the first thing about human rights...you still have executions. Our definition of human rights is correct.
American: Hah, nice try, Mr.-Restricts-More-Forms-Of-Free-Speech...America is right.
Poltical, partisan, and moral viewpoints are best left to news organizations, forums, and the like. Finding open source products to meet your needs should never involve you having to think, "Now, if I use this open source filter to block certain internet sites from my 20 year old son...is that violation of human rights or not?"
P.S. I hope my addition to your quote was correct, I tried to appropriately clarify what was conveyed in the previous article.
The last thing open source needs is divisive political themes attached to products. "Use this only if you support homosexual marriages" ..."Only members of the NRA are allowed to contribute to this product"..."This product can only be used to promote the views expressed by Amnesty International."
:) Remember, it's a gift, not something you have a right to possess -- and I, with my wacky amputee fetish, choose that all those two-legged types don't receive that gift.
I'm going to give you the same answer I give to people who complain that the GPL is viral: "If you don't like the license, write your own damn code."
If I, as a software author, want to release software that can only be used by one-legged people, that's my right. Cuts down my potential audience quite a bit, but hey.
Some things should be political, open source is not one of them.
Would you try to argue that Free Software is non-political?
deus does not exist but if he does
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
How you spend your money is in many more ways more important then how you vote.
War is necrophilia.
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.