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.
Who will decide whether a piece of software will "promote fundamental human rights of end-users"?
Actually, not all human rights violations are illegal. Depending on the your jurisdiction, not all human rights are part of your local laws.
"Light is faster than sound." - "Is that why people tend to look bright until you hear them speak?"
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.
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!
They should put a anti-spam clause in the license.
This software can not be used to create and/or send unsolicited email.
In short, the license does anything but promote human rights. Rather, it discriminates against some humans in favor of others.
-
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
...and the OpenBSD folks:o/~ Join us now and share the software
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
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.
How the Hell do people keep finding connections between 09/11 and the Big Scary Terrorists, and every single other fucking subject?
This is why AI and the UN are irrelevant. You cannot compare an enlightened, liberal (in the true sense of the word) and open system like the US to any totalitarian regime in the rest of the world.
The United states is amongst only six countries that impose the death penalty on juveniles. The others: Iran, Nigeria, Pakisan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen.
The United States is the only country besides Somalia that has not signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, because it contains a provision prohibiting the execution of children.
So, you can compare the US to many totalitarian regiemes in the world.
And if you think that you cannot compare them because the USA justice system is so infallible, you may like to refer to the study of error rates in death penalty cases "A Broken System: Error rates in Capital Cases, 1973-1995" by James S Leibman, Jeffery Fagan and Valerie West (2000). Search Google for a copy.
The USA is currently holding 600 people indefinately captive in inhuman conditions without any due process and without any legal rights or representation. Your claim that the USA is so "enlightened, liberal and open" that AI and the UN are irrelevant is laughable.
Amnesty's remit is a narrow one based on prisoners of conscience, with the death penalty bolted on since the 1980's originally because of a concern that most death penalty cases are politicised, and the DP is disproportionally directed, in many or most of the countries where it is used, on dissidents.
Last I looked, health-care was NOT part of the remit. Why the hell would it be?
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
It's good that they say all the right things, but it isn't enough.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Someone is going to explane to me why 'pro-choice' only applies to abortion. Most 'pro-choice' people don't feel that people have the right to chose to have a gun yet the feel that these same people have the right to kill a baby. Both sides on this issue are insane.
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]
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.