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.

Comments

Thats nice...

[the_one_wesp]

But in order for it to matter, someone has to USE it.

Not "free"

[isilrion]

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.

You mean *this* PETA?

[Infernal Device]

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.

PETA is redundant, we have the SPCA

[spun]

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.

Re:PETA is redundant, we have the SPCA

[spun]

> If I were a cow, I'd take that over constant fear of predators and the threat of starvation.

You pre-ordered and iPad, didn't you?

No. iPads are not delicious, even blended.

Thank you. I was a vegan for many years

[aussersterne]

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.

Attention whores

[jDeepbeep]

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.

Re:FLOSS software?

[JustinOpinion]

If you like eating meat, that's awesome. But don't use weak logic like:

all plants are living things too. Why is it more right to eat them than the good old mmmmm grilled bee

It should be obvious that the vegetarian argument is based upon a creature's capacity to experience pain and suffering. This is why there is in fact a gradation in vegetarianism: the most hard-line won't eat any animal at all, whereas some will eat some types of animals (e.g. shrimp) that they deem sufficiently primitive that they likely do not experience pain or suffering. Our best data suggest that plants cannot experience anything at all (much less pain and suffering), hence there is no moral argument against using them as a food source. (Whereas it's pretty clear that many mammals can experience pain and suffering.)

You may disagree with the argument (that's fine), but don't mis-characterize it. In fact, most people do agree with the argument, but merely set the line somewhere different (they will consider it wrong to kill other humans, and even primates, for food).

I think omnivorous humans need to stop using weak logic to defend their habits. They should just accept that their meat-eating does indeed cause environmental damage, and animal suffering, but that they consider this an acceptable compromise given the luxury that meat-eating represents. (Meat-eating is hardly the only luxury in modern society that has negative environmental consequences.) Conversely, if you just can't handle the thought that your luxurious diet causes environmental damage and animal suffering, then perhaps you should change your diet.

Re:FLOSS software?

[Martin Blank]

Whether a plant experiences pain and suffering depends on your definition of it. Plants do respond to detrimental contact with defensive reactions, which may include the release of ethylene gas (a signaling agent), generation and use of hormones and infection-blocking chemicals, and emission of paralyzing agents upon attack by certain insects. Animals usually run, cower, or lash out as defensive reactions to detrimental contact, though some also make use of signals (shrieks, yelps, cries, or roars), hormones (adrenaline), and even some paralyzing agents (snakes and scorpions, for example).

I am an omnivore. I am neither proud or ashamed of this; it is a simple fact that humans are omnivores, and their ancestors have been for at least the last few hundred thousand years, perhaps even several million years. We do eat more meat than we used to, and we should probably shift this back the other way some, but that doesn't mean that eating meat is itself unnatural. Should some people choose to eat according to a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle, I am happy to leave them to their choice. I am just as happy when they leave me to my choice. I do like to think that the animals that are slaughtered for my food suffer as little as possible, but I am not so naive as to think that they do not feel any fear or suffering. It's part of the price paid for the convenience of eating meat.

Re:FLOSS software?

[maxwell demon]

Eating someone else's dog is certainly not OK. Just like it would not be OK to eat someone else's pig. Or someone else's banana, for that matter.