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!
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"?
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!
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.
"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."
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.
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 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.
-
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
...and the OpenBSD folks:o/~ Join us now and share the software
Soylent Green is in line with the current GNU license, and the OpenBSD people support this fine processed meat.
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.)
This half true, half false. You CAN go to prison if you hack the wrong software, yet US prisons don't allow rape. That isn't to say that rape doesn't happen in US prisons...it just isn't allowed ;-)
Have you compiled your kernel today??
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
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.
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?
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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
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.
The cool thing about human rights violations is that they are something your political opponents engage in, never something you do.
-- Terry
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???
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]
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.
Isn't that redundant? :)
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
There are a few problems with that argument:
1. LSB steganography is detectable (and zeroable) at wire speed.
2. Planting steganographic images everywhere wastes bandwidth -- you can get equal quality images into less space if you omit the steganography.
3. Placing fake steganography everywhere is really equivalent to sending "files of random bits" everywhere; if you want to do that, there's no advantage to sticking the random bits into an image.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
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
"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.
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
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.
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.