Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

PETA Creates New Animal-Friendly Software License

Posted by samzenpus on from the no-animals-were-hurt-during-the-creation-of-this-story dept.

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.

3 of 356 comments (clear)

  1. FLOSS software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:FLOSS software? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Informative

      They seem to be aware of that:
      "As great as we think this license is, it has a number of limitations and drawbacks: * It's incompatible with the Open Source Initiatives (OSI) definition of open-source software, since it does not comply with their 6th condition "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor". * It is not considered "free software" according to the Free Software Foundation (FSF), since it does not comply with their requirement "The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0)". * It adds to the problematic proliferation of software licenses in the open-source community. * It is not compatible with any version of GPL. This is a major drawback, since it prevents the combination of HPL and GPL licensed software. Read a good argument for why software should comply with GPL in the article "Make Your Open Source Software GPL-Compatible. Or Else.".

  2. Not an Open Source license by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.