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"?
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!
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.
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!
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
I agree, you should definitely get out of politics. :)
If you don't have anything nice to say, shut up you stupid prick.
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.
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.