I agree that free software has to be free by definition. But is the meaning of the word "Free" established by FSF?
According to the open dictionary (http://open-dictionary.com/Free), free, when talking about software can be defined as: "with very few limitations on distribution or improvement compared to proprietary software". "few" is not the same as "no".
Using a program licensed under the HPL for activities that are _intended_ to cause the death of animals is prohibited. A program dedicated to ordering meat can thus not be HPL. You could of course order meat with a regular web browser, but that program _can_ be HPL since it is intended to browse the web, not to cause harm.
It doesn't seem to absurd to think that weapons manufacturers use some FLOSS libraries. Anyone that works with software probably uses some open source or FLOSS license some time or another. And while the missile (or whatever) is probably not HPL, the kicker is that it can't use any HPL components either.
Let's say that OpenCV (image processing library) was HPL (which it is not). Then, no matter what license the missile was being developed under (probably some proprietary XXX), it could not use OpenCV for it's guidance system.
If you publish FLOSS code under the HPL, it protects you from contributing (probably without knowing about it) to creation of products that are intended to cause harm.
"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. "
Quoting from http://www.peta.org/hpl.htm#pro_con
"The fact that HPL licensed software is considered non-free according to FSF might sound harsh. We value freedom very much and HPL licensed software grants you far reaching freedoms to use and redistribute your code (and it complies with the remaining three clauses in FSFs free-software definition). However, and this is an ideological bifurcation point, we value prevention of harm higher that the freedom to inflict harm. This makes HPL licensed software non-free according to FSF, but this is a conscious, ideologically motivated, restriction of freedom."
"The HPL is not open-source according to OSI; but we don't think that OSI owns the term open-source. Furthermore we don't think that their requirement "6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor" has relevance to the definition of the term open-source (even though we can agree that it is generally a good thing). We therefore consider software licensed under the HPL to be genuinely open-source. "
It doesn't have to be approved by FSF to be FLOSS and it doesn't have to be approved by the OSI to be open source.
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."
Who defines what is free software? FSF, the OSI? Sure it's in violation of freedom 0, but that's the whole point of the license! It's free in every respect that the FreeBSD license is EXCEPT it prevents harm. It is free or open source or libre or whaterver you wan't to call it.
Slashdot Mirror
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
I agree that free software has to be free by definition. But is the meaning of the word "Free" established by FSF?
According to the open dictionary (http://open-dictionary.com/Free), free, when talking about software can be defined as: "with very few limitations on distribution or improvement compared to proprietary software". "few" is not the same as "no".
"causing grievous bodily harm" is more well defined than you think. The phrase is formal legal terminology with a clear and precise meaning, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievous_bodily_harm
Using a program licensed under the HPL for activities that are _intended_ to cause the death of animals is prohibited. A program dedicated to ordering meat can thus not be HPL. You could of course order meat with a regular web browser, but that program _can_ be HPL since it is intended to browse the web, not to cause harm.
It doesn't seem to absurd to think that weapons manufacturers use some FLOSS libraries. Anyone that works with software probably uses some open source or FLOSS license some time or another. And while the missile (or whatever) is probably not HPL, the kicker is that it can't use any HPL components either.
Let's say that OpenCV (image processing library) was HPL (which it is not). Then, no matter what license the missile was being developed under (probably some proprietary XXX), it could not use OpenCV for it's guidance system.
If you publish FLOSS code under the HPL, it protects you from contributing (probably without knowing about it) to creation of products that are intended to cause harm.
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. "
Quoting from http://www.peta.org/hpl.htm#pro_con "The fact that HPL licensed software is considered non-free according to FSF might sound harsh. We value freedom very much and HPL licensed software grants you far reaching freedoms to use and redistribute your code (and it complies with the remaining three clauses in FSFs free-software definition). However, and this is an ideological bifurcation point, we value prevention of harm higher that the freedom to inflict harm. This makes HPL licensed software non-free according to FSF, but this is a conscious, ideologically motivated, restriction of freedom." "The HPL is not open-source according to OSI; but we don't think that OSI owns the term open-source. Furthermore we don't think that their requirement "6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor" has relevance to the definition of the term open-source (even though we can agree that it is generally a good thing). We therefore consider software licensed under the HPL to be genuinely open-source. " It doesn't have to be approved by FSF to be FLOSS and it doesn't have to be approved by the OSI to be open source.
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."
Perhaps you should check out the less restrictive version of the HPL, the wHPL (that only applies to humans) http://www.peta.org/hpl.htm#whpl
A license that forbids you to use goto... is that a bad thing?
Who defines what is free software? FSF, the OSI? Sure it's in violation of freedom 0, but that's the whole point of the license! It's free in every respect that the FreeBSD license is EXCEPT it prevents harm. It is free or open source or libre or whaterver you wan't to call it.