Slashdot Mirror
PETA Creates New Animal-Friendly Software License
Anders writes "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the largest animal rights organization in the world, endorse a new FLOSS license. From the article: 'The Harm-Less Permissive License (HPL) is a permissive, non copyleft, software license. It is based on the FreeBSD license but with one additional restriction; the "harm-less" clause. It prevents software, licensed under the HPL, to be used for harming humans or animals.'" I guess this leaves the bunny-fueled power plant in Stockholm out in the cold.
It is not free software. If you want to promote free software, you also have to make it available to parties or uses you might disagree with. Otherwise it is not free.
What do PETA people call themselves? PETAPHILES?
Sent from your iPad.
But in order for it to matter, someone has to USE it.
I don't think PETA should be wading into the waters of making a new license - the mess they make in doing so is not worth the negligible benefit for the cause of animal welfare they're trying to serve.
If we had a time machine and could hop back in time to make initial versions of the GPL involve a broader cultural conscience, *maybe* this kind of thing would be appropriate, but it's too late now and adding another license that's likely to be incompatible with the GPL means that this is the license equivalent of "straight to videocasette".
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
I'll be sure to "FLOSS" after eating my delicious manly steak tyvm.
We should start a new Slashdot and return control to the geeks. It actually wouldn't be that hard to get some users to
I should note that I support PETA's goals and have nuanced/partial support for ALF/ELF, I just don't think this could possibly be effective.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
You can no longer pen them in cages to achieve the desired marbling. This confines this license to small projects.
Whether or not it's in the license, if PETA finds out that you're harming animals with ANYTHING they're gonna get all up on, and sue you anyway. So what difference does it really make if it's in a license or not?
I refuse to use software that's been tested on animals.
I've seen video from hidden cameras of researchers stuffing javascript into bunnies eyes and ears. It's horrific.
This space available.
I misread that as hamless and thought it was a Moslem/Jewish licence!
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
endorse a new FLOSS license. [...] It prevents software, licensed under the HPL, to be used for harming humans or animals.
Then it is not a FLOSS license. It restricts use ("freedom 0"), however noble the cause may be. (emphasis in "may"). It may not even be an EULA instead of a Licence.
I'm reminded of Asimov's 0th law of robotics, "A robot may not harm humanity or through inaction allow humanity to come to harm". Hunting deer, for instance, certainly harms the deer that are killed but in many areas the natural predators have been all but wiped out and not hunting would lead to massive overpopulation. Eventually causing much more harm to both the animals not being hunted and to the ecosystem in general.
So, what is 'harm'? Is a nuclear power plant harmful to humans or animals? Is a prison harmful to humans or helpful? How about a nuclear power plant? How about a video game that depicts the harming of humans or animals?
If I use this license, I am using a computer, which uses energy, which expends carbon dioxide from coal production, which harms the environment, which harms animals living in that environment. Am I legally unable to apply this license of my own volition?
If I use this license to create an alarm clock to wake people up, is that harm enough to them? Are they considered animals for the purpose of this license?
People Eating Tasty Animals
HPL is not a free software license. But one way to use it is as part of a multi-license to force downstream users to choose between not harming animals and not harming other developers. Dual-license your software under HPL (a pro-animal rights license based on BSD) and the Sleepycat License (a copyleft license based on BSD), and the developers of products intended for causing bodily harm will have to free their changes to your code.
Sticking this license on your code won't get you laid.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
"No mules were flogged in the making of this software."
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
It's not free software if you can only use it for some things (for which reason labeling this license ('permissive' is an absolute joke). Open-Source I'll grant, but please don't lump it in with the FLOSS acronym.
It's also not particularly unique. Extending the 'no-harm' clause of the license to animals is an interesting novelty, but such clauses are not at all unprecedented.
It's not as though it's a serious attempt to influence software development anyway -few PETA things are ever anything more than publicity stunts, and this is no different- so why isn't this in Idle?
So I have to go to proprietary software to run my killbots?
As a restriction on use, this breaks freedom zero and No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor.
But, er, no one is seriously planning to use this, right?
If you're going to use the rights granted under the license, you then must grant those same rights to others. Unfortunately, this license does not grant the right to be free from harm - so it doesn't make sense to address causing or not causing harm as a responsibility.
Still, it's a contract, and you can say pretty much whatever you want in a contract - the real goal would seem to be to make it expensive for people to disagree with PETA's stances (whatever they happen to be at the moment), which tends to be the real goal of most contracts.
Ryan Fenton
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
Since it violates one of the key elements of the definition of Open Source this is not an Open Source license, and clearly _not_ a Free/Libre Open Source Software license.
I think it may even violate Wheaton's First Rule, the one about being a dick, but I can't prove that empirically.
The animals are to be protected, but the end-user humans are SoL? *and* it's known by its developers to be GPL-incompatible? (http://www.peta.org/hpl.htm#pro_con) Guess I can see their priorities.
--
Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
http://articles.sfgate.com/2005-06-23/opinion/17379611_1_peta-s-web-animal-cruelty-dead-animals
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/
http://www.newsweek.com/id/134549
and so on and so forth.
Fuck PETA. I feel my money and time would be better spent supporting the ASPCA. At least they don't make me want to cringe every time I hear or read about them.
I've pretty much reached the point where I equate PETA to Scientology. They're both a bunch of loonies with more money than sense.
"My God...it's full of trolls!"
Bringing "do no harm" into a software licence will(assuming anything other than toy software every gets thus licensed) really give the courts some exercise.
Ethics has, more or less since its inception, been tying itself in knots with ever subtler and more clever hypothetical conundra concerning harm, what it is, whether one can inflict lesser harm to avert greater, etc. Even better, to know whether you are "harming" something, you pretty much have to have decided what that something's interests are.
Obviously, using HPL-licensed firmware in my PuppyGrinder-3000 is probably not going to fly. What about using it in my WolfBot: Aibo's revenge deer population control device? Some direct harm is done; but nasty disease/starvation population crashes are averted. Anybody who has made it through PHIL-101 should be able to think of numerous similar examples.
Also potentially amusing, this is perhaps the only software license I know(other than perhaps the not-publicly-disclosed ones regarding DRM system robustness), where a software bug could put you in violation of the license. A radiotherapy machine would be compliant, a radiotherapy machine with a slight but troublesome bug in the dosing algorithm wouldn't be.
A big problem with this kind of license is that it doesn't work well with other licenses, like the GPL, that don't allow people to add restrictions. If you wanted to combine HPL and GPL code in a program, you couldn't do it - making it GPL would violate the HPL; making it HPL or "GPL-plus-don't-hurt-animals" would violate the GPL.
If even 1/2 of the effort put into nonsense like this, was put into actual you know "things that make sense" rather than utterly useless jr high level pranks/idiotic ideas like this.. then the organizations would have signficantly better chance of being taken seriously rather than dismissed out of hand. Nevermind the impracticality of the license being enforced .. omg is using a perl script that has the harmless clause, we got them now! Quick sue them! This comes from the mindset that "all publicity is good publicity" which is sadly not the case when trying to change/modify/insert opinions on a subject. For every lunatic that thinks that seeing someone splashed with paint because they are wearing fur/leather, its entirely likely that 80% or more think to themselves "those crazy PETA nuts are at it again".. Its entirely useless unless their goal is to simply get everyone to associate their organization with fringe/crazy behavior which they have been rather successful at.
It takes more than saying "doing it this way is wrong" to change opinions and behavior, you have to present alternatives and educate on the why, A good example being militant open source or nothing vs "open source is appropriate in many cases and here is why/how"
... Fuck PETA. Fuck them right up their stupid terrorism-supporting asses. Until that vile cunt ringleader who is dependent on animal-derived insulin gives it up and just accepts the fact the she was born defective and the natural pecking order has singled her out for death, then they can all just eat me. If all animals are equal to us, then she can just suck it up and die.
I'm a fairly radical leftist and even I find PETA to be utterly ridiculous and ineffective. They harm their own cause with their hard line stance and near-terrorist (some would say, get rid of the 'near' part) actions. Sea Kittens? Really? And PETA have 'rescued' animals, only to let them die because they did not know how to care for them or did not have the resources. They are buffoons.
If you want to support a legitimate group with the same or very similar goals, support the SPCA I'm all about reducing suffering and cruelty, in animals and humans. But animals are delicious. An animal, raised right by humans for food, suffers FAR LESS than its wild counterpart. Being raised by a good rancher is a great bargain for a cow. A pleasant life with plentiful food and no predation, in exchange for a quick and painless death. If I were a cow, I'd take that over constant fear of predators and the threat of starvation.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Also potentially amusing, this is perhaps the only software license I know(other than perhaps the not-publicly-disclosed ones regarding DRM system robustness), where a software bug could put you in violation of the license.
Read the license. It mentions intent to cause bodily harm. A clearer example of bug == violation is AGPL section 13, which puts you in violation if you break "view source".
I don't think PETA wants you using cod in the first place.
Use of any software consumes power and requires hardware. The creation of the power or the hardware for the creation of the power or the system hardware itself required the destruction of some component of the environment.
Also the consumption of power emits waste heat which contributes to global warming.
The plain simple fact is software in general is bad for animals.
PETA is to animals as Hitler was to Jews. Hitler "liberated" a few million Jews from their "suffering", which is what PETA does to animals. Many people think PETA exists to stop abuse of animals (like many other organisations), but they actually exist to stop human dependence on animals. Which if taken to its conclusion would result in a hell of a lot less animals being around on the planet. In their world view it is better for a cow to be dead than to be in "bondage" to a farmer.
Oh, and high ranking members of PETA have been caught supporting eco-terrorists. They are Earth worshippers who should be declared a religious cult so that they don't go around warping kids minds by pretending to have some secular agenda.
========
CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
Not strictly on topic but I wanted to address any retarded PeTA members who may be reading this thread.
Hey morons,
Animals often eat animals. Try putting a cat on a vegan diet sometime and see what happens.
Some people can't survive, at least not without health issues, on a vegan diet. Some are allergic to vegetable proteins, others need a higher-than-usual cholesterol intake, and some people's bodies can't synthesize some essential amino acids so those people need to eat other animals to remain healthy.
When you get cats and predatory birds to stop eating meat, fish to stop eating fish, reptiles to stop eating meat, all animals ranging from the largest carnivorous or omnivorous seat mammals to the smallest of viruses and bacteria, I'll agree with your position that eating animals is "cruel."
Until then, I will still shove dismembered cows, sheep, bison, deer, chickens, turkeys, rabbit, ostrich, goats, and many other land, air and sea animals down my pie hole. First of all, animals are yummy, and second of all, I tried the vegan diet (Not out of political or misguided philosophical motivations, but because I believed the hype and that eliminating animal products would solve some health problems. It almost killed me because the problem which had escaped diagnosis became much worse. I have since gone on a high-cholesterol, mostly meat diet and the symptoms disappeared. A vegan diet just can't work for me, because I need a high cholesterol intake, am very intolerant of and slightly allergic to soy proteins. There are no plant sources for cholesterol, and my body doesn't synthesize enough so I need to eat animals.
In summary, PeTA, you assholes are a bunch of idiots.
Given the number of them which are euthanized:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/134549
To see their hypocrisy, look at the statements made by their lawyers in the trial of PETA employees, or by their president, "We are not in the home finding business, although it is certainly true that we do find homes from time to time for the kind of animals people are looking for. Our service is to provide a peaceful and painless death to animals who no one wants."
-- Ingrid Newkirk, PeTA President, The Virginian-Pilot, July 20, 2005
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
I support anything that helps animals -- and that is what PETA is doing.
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petasdirtysecret.cfm Nuff said.
Of all the things I've lost; I miss my mind the most. - Mark Twain
The original founder of PETA has distanced herself from the group because it took a radical life of its own, something she didn't envision or want.
If God didn't want us to eat animals, He wouldn't have made them out of meat.
... Because what we really need is another damn open source license. I was just thinking to myself the other day, I said "Self, what the world needs is just ONE MORE open source license. That would just make everything SO MUCH BETTER!"
And why only Chordata? It's not OK to kill cows, dogs, land-fish or sea-kittens, but killing arachnids (scorpions, spiders) or crustaceans (crabs, lobsters) is OK? Is it because they're not cute?
Morons.
/~mikeg
... they routinely snatch people's pets from gardens and off the street and euthanise them. They also recommend that people mutilate their cats by ripping off the top joint of their toes (declawing) and damaging their teeth so that they can't hunt or eat solid food (dead rodents, for example). How ethical is it to stop a cat being a cat?
PETA want the complete elimination of all animals. Or at least, that's what it looks like.
This license is a permissive license, similar to the BSD license; however it requires at least one animal sacrifice when software is distributed. Note: 1 human sacrifice can be used to create a pool of 10 animal sacrifices. This reduces the amount of cleanup required.
and still can't stand PETA. "Buffoons" is the best way I've heard them described. Lavish expenses while they euthanize pets brought to them with the expectation of care. Financial support and a personnel revolving door with the ELF/ALF/HSUS crowd. Ridiculous campaigns that will only appeal to young children which seems appropriate to them since they often leaflet K-6 institutions and events with graphic material.
For every friend they make and funnel into a life of sad social marginality and constant maudlinity, they make a dozen enemies that after having contact with PETA will never, ever consider going vegetarian or vegan for any reason whatsoever.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
at least, not with this OS...
I've been vegetarian nearly my entire life and vegan for several years, and I have to say that PETA annoys me to no end. One attention seeking stunt after another, and might I add, several that make animal-rights advocates look downright petty. This looks like yet another stunt by them, trying to stay relevant, and get as much exposure as possible. I often interact with people who assume I like what PETA does, but I should say here that I am far from alone, as an animal rights advocate, and as a vegan, when I express my dislike of their tactics. But beyond attention-whoring tactics, they are also intensely hypocritical (google for PETA stockholders Tyson foods). I hope they die soon.
Reply to That ||
2) Vegetarian is Alaskan for "bad hunter"
6.8SPC TR of 550, l xwind at 6, drift rt at 26" drops 77". AT has 503 ft-lbs at 1403 fps. FT 0.86
I'm from a species classified as an animal. Part of being an animal is we eat other living things - or living things that were recently alive...
I eat other life forms. I don't have an irrational bias that eliminates entire classes of food energy. As a sensitive, enlightened, 21st century animal, I choose not to let prejudices decide what living things I eat. If it will keep my body going, I'll consume it as a chemical energy source. If it has cells, I'll eat it. I don't care what its metabolism is. I don't care if it's a solar vampire that draws its energy from the sun. If the need arises, I'll even eat my own species.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
and near-terrorist (some would say, get rid of the 'near' part) actions.
Let's list terrorist-like actions they have done. I'll let you start.
Reply to That ||
more a kooky religion than anything else. In the mid 2000's I ended up being closely associated for career reasons with several people inside PETA, a couple of coordinators and some field workers, and had a chance to lunch with them a few times.
Their "ethical" position as we talked was that all pets must die and pet ownership ended, because it is inherently a form of suffering to lead the "unnatural" life of a pet. Furthermore, they carried this largely to humans; they made snide comments about people around us with children and often linked having children to the creation of suffering, since to live is to suffer (and therefore to create a human is to cause them suffering). They agreed that they could never take part in such an unethical thing.
Anytime you get into "all of humanity ought to die out because all humans do is suffer; oh, how glorious a world without humans and thus human suffering would finally be," you're deeply into cult territory, which matches up well with PETA's tendency to impose pressure on employees to end contact with intentionally non-vegan/non-vegetarian friends and family members.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
stupid terrorism-supporting asses.
[citation needed]
Reply to That ||
http://thedevils.net/sea-kittens/
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
This license actually forbids you from using certain coding styles. For example we all know that for every goto statement God kills a kitten. Therefore according to this license you cannot use that in your code, ergo it is not FLOSS.
PETA can go fuck themselves.
We are eternal, all this pain is an illusion.
I don't think PETA should be wading into the waters of making a new license
As with virtually everything PETA do, the license is simply a means to an end, that being to get themselves and their message into the papers on the back of a story.
They're undeniably good at that, though whether it ultimately benefits or weakens their ostensible goal is strongly open to question.
Anyway, I'm sure that they'd be happy if the license took off for its own sake, but that wasn't the reason they created and launched it like that.
License proliferation is only a problem if a license is likely to be widely used. While a few hardcore PETA, er... -philes will probably use it, its incompatibility with the GPL etc will limit its usefulness.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Why would I want to write such a game? Just to piss off PETA and its retards who anthropomorphize animals as ickle wickle bunny wunnies. Particularly sexy animals who'd they'd love all night long.
There are dozens of more deserving animal welfare organisations. Organisations like the RSPCA, Compassion in World Farming, World Wildlife Fund etc. who are too busy actually working with government, industry & individuals on real world animal issues to be arsed to launch cretinous publicity campaigns such as animal friendly software licences.
People Eating Tasty Animals will not use PETA license. I have used PETA endorsements to choose what not to buy & to choose what not to vote for.
They should not only not condemn, but wholeheartedly endorse kosher slaughterhouses since their service is to provide a peaceful and painless death to animals - not for liberal "think of the animals" guilt complexes, but because a peaceful, painless death provides better meat for other animals (homo sapiens) to eat - we are omnivorous animals - go look it up, PeTA wackos! The only difference here is that the carcasses of the dead animals are not going to waste, but are providing a critical link in the food chain.
PETA, once you bioengineer humans to live on grass, come talk to us. Otherwise, bug off!
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
I doubt PETA would've even thought that far.
You're assuming that licenses have the full weight of law behind every clause. If I create a license that says you must kill your family if you use my software, or that you must sign your soul over to Satan, that is obviously unenforceable. Licenses cannot force you to do silly things, and the "do no harm" will likely not be able to be twisted too far in court.
IANAL, and you should probably talk to one before taking what I said as the absolute truth, but I'm reasonably certain of it.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
But the source code for a euthanasia machine would work with this license right?
Someone obviously did their homework here W.R.T. software licenses. My guess is that the name mentioned at the bottom of the license page (Anders '4ZM' Sundman) is someone who works with FLOSS licenses often, and (like many of us on /.) can easily rattle these concerns off pretty easily.
Still, I'm impressed that PETA would allow that kind of critical analysis on the license page. Usually advocacy groups concentrate on the advantages of their position, and avoid active pro/con debate, at least on official pages.
I'm also intrigued that PETA put up a 2nd license on the page -- the so-called wHPL license. The basic difference between the HPL and the wHPL is that the former is written to protect Humans + Animals, and the latter is just written to protect Humans. While PETA offering users a choice between the two is admirable, I am curious as to why they would author the 2nd license at all.
Don't get me wrong, protecting humans is a great and noble cause, but if PETA believes that the furry (and not-so-furry) critters deserve equal protection as humans, then why would they provide a license that allows users to protect humans while, at the same time, roasting up Bambi et al. for some shish-kabobs?
I see two possible motivations here
I may not agree with PETA on many things, but it's certainly nice to see such frank self-analysis accompanying a software license. Kudos to them.
coding is life
In other news, the Business Software Alliance has proposed new standards on compassionate treatment in animal shelters with a clause forbidding use of pirated software in their administration.
Seriously, what business does an organization that claims to be for animal rights have sticking its nose in software development?
-- I prefer the term "karma escort."
But in order for it to matter, someone has to USE it.
A. Software has to be written which use this license.
B. Software has to be distributed.
Like any other license (including GPL) HPL is a copyright license.
It means it only kicks in when you make copies of said software (because normal copyright law says "you can't make a copy if you're not the author or IP owner - you need a license to do so").
It can't control what you do with it.
In practice :
- I could be an evil overlord.
- While doing nothing in particular, I acquire a HPL-licensed accounting soft from some random person. This person has the authorisation to make that copy as per HPL: As I'm not doing anything wrong.
- Later on, as my plan to dominate the world goes forward, I start my own Factory of fur-mantles "Torquemada and Sons : 100% guaranteed natural fur made out of young cruelly slaughtered puppies".
- I use the HPL accounting software in my fur factory.
- HPL can't prevent me of doing it. It only controls copying and propagating software.
- As long as I use the software internally and I don't start giving out copies of this accounting software I'm in the clear. (I can't make copies because I'm not the author, and have no authorisation as only animal non-torturer are authorised by HPL).
- I could even be worse and actually send byck my patches to the original author.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Are you talking about Mary Beth Sweetland? She isn't dependent on animal-derived insulin; Sweetland uses Humulin, a synthetic human insulin substitute.
"Kill all humans"... Check. Now, what is their opinion on giant robots?
It supports the Three Laws!
Heck, I can one-up whatever they're doing. At least 50% of my own software was written with a cat on my lap or a dog curled up under my desk. All of my software doesn't just avoid harming animals, it was created while actively bringing animals love, warmth, and satisfaction.
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
Your statement simply does not correlate with mine. Humans have different standards than animals, and a life of human slavery is not the same as the life of a free range cow. A human living in those conditions will suffer considerably, not even counting the physical torture. A cow will not. I've lived on farms. Properly raised and well treated farm animals are generally happy and content.
An animal does not know it isn't free. "Freedom" is a high order abstraction that no other animals besides ourselves are capable of. Animals live in the moment, and every moment of a well cared for farm animal's life is pleasant, right up to a split second ending, rather than a horrific, drawn out death from being eaten alive.
I'm not claiming animals are a utility for us to use. I'm claiming something bigger: animals get a better bargain from us than from nature.
And remember, I am not endorsing the horrors of factory farming here. I am talking about free range, cruelty free animals.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Another reason to go out and endorse the cruelty and slaughter of stupid herbivorous creatures! Yes, make that burger a double, extra bacon! Mmm, I can taste their pain and tears of sadness in every juicy bite of seared flesh! >:D
Why yes, I would like to watch a video of foxes being skinned alive! I think it's funny as Hell, especially because some giant faginas out there act like they're watching Holocaust victims being tortured when they see a stupid beast dying for my benefit! Plz do cry moar, it makes my enjoyment all the sweeter!
Killing animals. Not because it's fun, for food or for profit. Because it makes Gaiafags cry like babies. >:D
And to all the vegans out there who choose that lifestyle for health reasons rather than because someone like PETA wishes you would: Rock On. Like the man said, it's not because you love animals, it's because you really hate plants. ;D
Much as I dislike PETA's immature, attention-whoring, hardline, hypocritical, etc. etc. stance in general, the "sea kittens" thing at least (somewhat) raises the issue about people's double standards when it comes to animal cruelty, etc.
Plus, "sea kittens" is a FAR MORE educational name.
Let me give you an example.
Q: What does the pussy smell like?
A: A sea kitten.
See? You can't put a price on that kind of education.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Hahahaha.. this really made my day!
I guess I am excluded from using this license.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
has nothing to do with software license. And I hope nobody in their right mind use such fluff to promote their agenda for "animal liberation".
Not that I'm saying that stuff is good but this is nothing more than another way to promote their bottom line from a business who's members
have profited from animal research, euthanized many more animals than they've rescued and gave money to firebombers. Hypocrites!
Absurd and rediculous "news". I hope nobody's this stupid.
I don't know if this issue has been raised before, but it doesn't fit the Free Software definition or OSI guidelines, thus neither FL or OSS. This is due to the restriction on potential uses. There can't be ANY restrictions on what the software can be used for.
It might not be right for every project. However, Quoting from http://www.peta.org/hpl.htm "The open source community will hopefully benefit from the HPL since some software can be made publicly available that would otherwise have been withheld altogether."
Way ahead of you.
Quoting from http://www.peta.org/hpl.htm#pro_con [peta.org]:
"I personally consider the fact that HPL is incompatible with GPL as it's main disadvantage. Believe me, we have thought long and hard about ways to make the HPL GPL-compatible, but we have finally reached the conclusion that it is fundamentally and utterly impossible. Like most FLOSS proponents, I would like to see a widespread distribution and use of the code that I make available to the community; but I would rather take the risk of no one every using my code than letting a single person or organisation use it to cause harm. So, in conclusion, the ideological "harm-less" principle takes precedence over practical inconvenience and I side with the HPL. "
There's an app for that.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
No bugs will be harmed in creating this license.
The truth is much more damning, such as they opposing seeing dogs for the blind.
...that I can't release my Bacon emulation software under their license?
http://www.bynarystudio.com
...for software to manage their wholesale killing of homeless pets?
http://www.bynarystudio.com
What have People Eating Tasty Animals got to do with software anyway?
Why bother
If you want to support a legitimate group with the same or very similar goals, support the SPCA I'm all about reducing suffering and cruelty, in animals and humans. But animals are delicious. An animal, raised right by humans for food, suffers FAR LESS than its wild counterpart. Being raised by a good rancher is a great bargain for a cow. A pleasant life with plentiful food and no predation, in exchange for a quick and painless death. If I were a cow, I'd take that over constant fear of predators and the threat of starvation.
The SPCA is *VERY* far from an Animal Rights position. SPCA is a Welfare initiative. For example, promoting so called "humane" animal products. In NZ, a recent news story was how the "free range" label is meaningless http://coexistingwithnonhumananimals.blogspot.com/2010/05/no-actual-free-range-standard-for-nz.html Indeed, many Vegans, such as myself, are VERY critical of PETA. I *hate* when they raise false choices, between "have the animals suffer" or "lets kill animals but maybe make the cages an inch bigger". I promote actual Veganism, true Animal Rights.
/. users who mention their veganism. They dont scream it at you in every one of their posts, but there must surely be many vegans using Slashdot.
Animals are delicious? Well...I would disagree, but I guess taste is subjective, taste is what you grow up with. If you live in an area where you eat X, you will most likely enjoy it, no matter what other cities/countries/continents think.
I find it hard to believe in any situation that a wild animal "suffers" more than an animal stuck in a cage for its whole life. Its somewhat like saying an animal with one of his or her legs stuck in a trap is suffering far less...
Lets put the choice into the outside world. Lets say that people would all live to be 100 if we lived inside our whole lives. I'd even expand it beyond "a cage", lets go with a whole building. Would you choose that situation? Or would you rather be outside, able to live wherever you wish? To be able to eat whatever you wish? To listen to music you choose, to drive a car...its just silly to continue on this chain of thought! Especially if you knew you were being slaughtered while still being a child by choosing the confined option!
If you truly believe being farmed for your organs is "a pleasant life with plentiful food and no predation", then by all means turn yourself in to some cannibals! I liked when you said "no predation", ha, human beings are surely one of the most dangerous predators in the world! Think of a pig, what would eat the majority of pigs in the world? I'd assume people.
From the Vegan groups I know, the majority of Vegans seem to be in the field of Tech! I have a podcast about Animal Rights, and I was getting many messages from Linux using Vegans, who couldnt use iTunes to subscribe. You will notice on stories such as this, there will be regular
Frankly, I cannot stand PETA, I hate their position of Welfare reforms and sexist stunts. There are many true AR groups, such as The Abolitionist Approach http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/
I dont think killing 56 billion living beings, excluding aquatic animals*, for our pleasure is morally justifiable. *PDF of UN statistics from 2007 http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/media/pdf/2007-glipha-stats.pdf
---
Open Source licenses are not allowed to discriminate against fields of endeavor. When I was writing the Open Source Definition, there were Berkeley SPICE license that prohibited use by the Police of South Africa. Apartheid had ended, those Police were Black, and they were still prohibited.
I didn't want to see anti-abortion licenses and pro-choice licenses, etc. Just licenses for software that people could use without having to read the license or ask a lawyer.
Too bad that software patents broke the "not having to see a lawyer" thing for some companies in some places. But in general, if you just want to use software under a real Open Source license, go ahead.
Bruce Perens.
...of being kind to little duckies and bunnies, but just in general, FUCK PETA. I will use any such software I come across to kill as many innocent little animals as possible, just because.
If the license said "do no harm" what you are saying would probably be true, but it doesn't. Do read the explanation at http://www.peta.org/hpl.htm
The license talks about intent to cause grievous bodily harm. These are formal legal expressions with well defined legal meanings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievous_bodily_harm
the most hard-line won't eat any animal at all
The most hard liner will only eat the part of a plants which meant to be eaten. Like Apple trees produces apple because they want the apple to be eaten so the seeds get profiled.
Martin
Some group named "Hacktivismo" decided to make a license that protected human rights. GNU, rightly,
called it out on not being a free software license (and it's not free in Debian's eyes or open source in OSI's eyes either):
We'll assume for convenience's sake that your first language is not English.
Or, perhaps you are one of "God's chosen people", i.e. a perfectly unilingual American.
But if neither of the above, please forgo some of the cyber-punk jargon, and take a remedial high-school course in English.
Gelsey-
Ahh! Warm Pinoqachole!
Why would I want anything from them or care about anything they endorse? The only thing they're interested in is playing politics and garnering power for themselves. People Euthanizing Trusting Animals They can kiss my (small donkey).
We at PETA, yet again have nothing better to do, have scheduled a protest against this posting being placed in the "Idle" Slashdot category. Our unused license is a serious matter, and we are going to jump up-and-down and whine until you listen to our self-rightous banter.
The protest will be held at the following coordinates. 29.234642,-76.776123
See you all there!