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.
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
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."
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.
"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
Actually these kinds of marriages are a part of their culture, and they are not trapped as you imply, these marriages actually work. I have several friends (6 couples) who's marriage was set up for them by their families, They all (Husband and Wife) are very happy, and are glad that they didn't have to waste time with dating. This is not human rights violation, it is simply a cultural difference.
Get a free ipod.
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.
Camera/Shy does one thing right: It encrypts the data. Well, almost right -- their keying is a bit broken, but it's still strong enough
The steganography, however, is entirely broken. The method they use -- fiddling with the least significant bits -- is trivial to identify, even when implemented correctly; but they bungled the implementation (doing wierd things like base64 encoding, which leaves an extremely obvious signature) as well.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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]
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
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.