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.
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.
Who's idea of human rights do we use?
boldly going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.