Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Lars Marowsky-Brée 😷 (larsmb@mastodon.online)'s status on Saturday, 16-Nov-2024 18:33:38 JST Lars Marowsky-Brée 😷

   This week's musings: Free, Libre, Open - Ethical?

   (Totally not prompted by anything happening the world.)

   https://opensourcerer.eu/free-open-ethical/

   #OpenSource #blog #FreeSoftware #EthicalSoftware

   • Embed this notice
     Arne Babenhauserheide (arnebab@rollenspiel.social)'s status on Saturday, 16-Nov-2024 18:33:37 JST Arne Babenhauserheide

     in reply to

     @larsmb > "I can't formally forbid my work to be used for mass murder"

     Mass murder is already illegal, so what would you gain by adding another layer of illegal?

     The goal of strong copyleft Free Software licenses is to prevent the abuse of licensing as a means to project power. That’s why I think "ethical source licenses" are wrong: they abuse copyright for power over people.

     But I like your community approach, i.e. I tell a self-unmasked far-righters who ask for support: I don’t help Nazis.

   • Embed this notice
     Arne Babenhauserheide (arnebab@rollenspiel.social)'s status on Saturday, 16-Nov-2024 18:37:13 JST Arne Babenhauserheide

     in reply to

     @larsmb If you think about "ethical licensing" with yourself the defender of values under attack, they seem nice. But the moment you are the target of them, they become really nasty.

     Think about a Christian license: "this graph algorithm may only be used in accordance with the scripture. Only Christians may benefit from it."

     ⇒ "I’m sorry, you cannot enter this tram, because we would then be forbidden from using our map software and that would endanger lifes."

   • Embed this notice
     Lars Marowsky-Brée 😷 (larsmb@mastodon.online)'s status on Saturday, 16-Nov-2024 20:01:37 JST Lars Marowsky-Brée 😷

     in reply to

     • Arne Babenhauserheide

     @ArneBab Mass murder is not illegal when you call it war.
     Saying we can't have rules against, say, religious discrimination because then some religion might have rules that discriminate is not convincing.
     And likening rules for a software project for which there are always alternatives to those for public physical infrastructure also only goes so far.
     I don't want to give my busses to those who make others sit in the back of the bus.

   • Embed this notice
     Arne Babenhauserheide (arnebab@rollenspiel.social)'s status on Saturday, 16-Nov-2024 20:01:37 JST Arne Babenhauserheide

     in reply to

     @larsmb Are there always alternatives to software projects? If yes: why can proprietary software enforce rules (which it does)?

     I also don’t want to see people force people to sit in the back using my software. But whenever I think that that’s easy, I nowadays think of the middle east.

     There are fascists and discrimination on both sides, so using my software would be forbidden for both sides and the civilians would not have cheap infrastructure, because that would support racism.
     1/2

   • Embed this notice
     Arne Babenhauserheide (arnebab@rollenspiel.social)'s status on Saturday, 16-Nov-2024 20:06:43 JST Arne Babenhauserheide

     in reply to

     @larsmb It is well known that part of the aid sent to Gaza helps the terrorists of Hamas who murder people for their religion or sexual orientation. Does that mean we should not send aid?

     It is well known that part of the support for Israel helps right-wing settlers. Does that mean we should not send aid?

     I don’t want software used to project power, because then rich people will decide the rules: they finance most software development, and I am dependent on libraries by others, too.
     2/2

   • Embed this notice
     Lars Marowsky-Brée 😷 (larsmb@mastodon.online)'s status on Sunday, 17-Nov-2024 00:30:39 JST Lars Marowsky-Brée 😷

     in reply to

     • Arne Babenhauserheide

     @ArneBab That is a position you can take. I don't agree with it.

   • Embed this notice
     Arne Babenhauserheide (arnebab@rollenspiel.social)'s status on Sunday, 17-Nov-2024 00:30:39 JST Arne Babenhauserheide

     in reply to

     @larsmb OK.

   • Embed this notice
     Alexandre Oliva (lxo@gnusocial.jp)'s status on Sunday, 17-Nov-2024 06:26:55 JST Alexandre Oliva

     in reply to
     free software is about freedom
     
     it's about not controlling others through the software they use
     
     it's about not imposing one's values over others through the software
     
     it's about not colonizing others
     翠星石 and Luciano Silva like this.
     Luciano Silva repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     Lars Marowsky-Brée 😷 (larsmb@mastodon.online)'s status on Sunday, 17-Nov-2024 18:30:36 JST Lars Marowsky-Brée 😷

     in reply to

     • Alexandre Oliva

     @lxo They're not controlled, nor colonized. They can / could choose other software.

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Sunday, 17-Nov-2024 19:38:51 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @larsmb The "Linux Foundation" is a group of copyright infringers and worse freedom takers, passing around tips on how to ensure derivative works of Linux remain proprietary despite how it's licensed under the GPLv2-only as well as other software licensed under the GPLv2-or-later or the GPLv3-or-later.
     
     Whether you develop software publicly or privately doesn't really matter - either development model is acceptable, what's not acceptable is distributing proprietary software.
     
     >If, as a software developer or contributor, I can't formally forbid my work to be used for mass murder without being excluded from the currently largest software community, does that not strike you as strange?
     Copyright does not give anyone the power to forbid mass murder and therefore any kind of such requirement is legally invalid and trying to apply restrictions beyond what copyright law permits renders a license nonfree.
     
     If people are willing to do mass murder, they won't even think twice about infringing copyright, nor any other law (besides, most mass murders are carried out by governments, who feel that they are above any law).
     
     You really should only include things relevant to a project - but if you really want to show that you're against mass murder, you can add a comment to the README detailing such without rendering the software nonfree (but don't complain when someone decides to remove such non-relevant information).
     
     >Hippocratic License for Open Source Communities
     That license is so proprietary and unethical that you can't even read it without running proprietary JavaScript (bonus proprietary points; it seems they want to encourage writing your own special proprietary license).
     
     I found a copy of the old 2.1 version and surprise, surprise, it violates all 4 freedoms; https://spdx.org/licenses/Hippocratic-2.1.html
     
     It's a total dumpster fire and many sections do not appear to be legally valid (protip: imaginary property does not legally exist, there is copyright, patent, trademark and trade secret law etc, all with major differences).
     
     I cannot tell if it even actually gives permission to modify or distribute the software - it mentions modifications and distribution, but only in a past tense, without giving explicit permission to do so and even the past tense stuff appears to have something to do about how you're allowed to write your own software and distribute that under of your terms (how generous).
     
     Thankfully, few people will make the mistake of using proprietary software under that license family.
     
     >Most of our communities have codes of conduct and contributor guidelines already
     Proprietary CoC's are unacceptable and I will never agree to one.
     
     Guidelines are acceptable, as those are merely suggestions.
     
     >We have the right to refuse interactions, contributions, patches, reports, sponsorships, or affiliations with individuals or organizations whose values, policies, or practices irreconcilably conflict with ours.
     Part of freedom is to be free to choose to accept patches or not.
     
     I don't like nazi's, but I won't refuse a patch from a nazi as long as it's acceptably licensed and good.
     
     Part of freedom is being able to work with x even if others have declared that (almost always incorrectly) that x is a nazi.
     
     >Consider adopting ethical practices that go beyond Free, Libre, and Open Source
     "Consider applying proprietary restrictions that go beyond freedom".
     
     >it is not just commercial exploitation which open-washes our communities (and where I believe that the Software Freedom Conservancy comes out ahead in their stance over OSI's pragmatism
     The "OSI" was ****solely made to allow for commercial exploitation**** - proprietary software companies do not like hearing that proprietary software is unacceptable, thus the "OSI" was made to silence any of those discussions and focus on only higher quality software, faster (preferably under weak licenses, all the better to make proprietary and to chain people with).
     
     >Technology is not neutral.
     I cannot read that paper without running proprietary software (what a surprise), but I know that technology is in fact neutral.
     
     A hammer is neutral.
     
     A fancy calculator is neutral.
     
     Whether a technology is good or bad solely depends on how someone uses it.
   • Embed this notice
     Alexandre Oliva (lxo@gnusocial.jp)'s status on Monday, 18-Nov-2024 07:40:16 JST Alexandre Oliva

     in reply to
     are you familiar with the phrase "my way or the high way"? that's what your argument amounts to, and it's not a cool position at all. it's not even ethical.
     
     imposing values and behavior though the software is exactly the control and colonization I'm getting at
     
     it's not a given that people can choose not to use the software, as many programs are imposed taxing software
     
     but even if they can opt out, it is still the case that you stand for imposing values, controlling and colonizing users through the software they use.
     
     those who opt out don't use the software, so they're not (your) users, and that's exactly what they need to do to defend freedom
     
     whereas all those who choose to use the software licensed under such abusive terms are indeed controlled and colonized, because of the terms it imposes in a misguided, false and broken analogy with copyleft. I can elaborate on why the analogy is misguided, false and broken if you wish.
     翠星石 and Jeff "never puts away anything, especially oven mitts" Cliff, Bringer of Nightmares 🏴‍☠️🦝🐙 🇱🇧🧯 🇨🇦🐧 like this.
   • Embed this notice
     Lars Marowsky-Brée 😷 (larsmb@mastodon.online)'s status on Monday, 18-Nov-2024 15:46:44 JST Lars Marowsky-Brée 😷

     in reply to

     • Alexandre Oliva

     @lxo Do you have a specific problem with any example I brought up, or is your argument "if you're allowed to take a stand for human rights, someone else might use the same mechanism for something evil, thus nobody is allowed to have morals"?
     Because if its the latter, I think that's a reduction ad absurdum.
     And if it's the former, I didn't think our values are compatible enough to have a meaningful discussion.

   • Embed this notice
     Lars Marowsky-Brée 😷 (larsmb@mastodon.online)'s status on Monday, 18-Nov-2024 16:15:40 JST Lars Marowsky-Brée 😷

     in reply to

     • Alexandre Oliva

     @lxo Is a "free for non-commercial use" license "colonizing" anyone?
     If yes, all CC NC variants would be, or is code different from code in this dimension?
     If no, why is "free for *some* commercial use"?

   • Embed this notice
     Arne Babenhauserheide (arnebab@rollenspiel.social)'s status on Monday, 18-Nov-2024 16:56:34 JST Arne Babenhauserheide

     in reply to

     • Daniel Barlow

     @dan Yes: the question is whether you have a consistent stance based on general principles.

     If your stance is not derived from general principles, it will cause much more incompatibility between licenses.

     And if you use general principles, but they are often interpreted differently by different people, it causes massive legal uncertainty: “will the court agree with my interpretation?”
     @larsmb

   • Embed this notice
     Daniel Barlow (dan@brvt.telent.net)'s status on Monday, 18-Nov-2024 16:56:35 JST Daniel Barlow

     in reply to

     • Arne Babenhauserheide
     @ArneBab @larsmb and yet it remains my choice whether to send aid to group A and if I do choose to, I am not also required to send aid to group B
     Now substitute "provide software" for "send aid"
   • Embed this notice
     Alexandre Oliva (lxo@gnusocial.jp)'s status on Tuesday, 19-Nov-2024 05:57:52 JST Alexandre Oliva

     in reply to
     if it is as good a guiding principle as you and I seem to believe it is, it had better be adopted voluntarily by societies at large in democratic ways, not by decree of tyrant author-ities
     
     this is exactly where the attempted analogy with copyleft falls apart: copyright law, widely adopted in democratic societies (to my dismay, but that's another long story), grants authors powers to stop anyone else from adapting, distributing and publishing works of their authorship. copyleft gives up these powers, enabling downstream recipients to have freedom, so that they can control their own computing and do whatever they wish with the software. but copyleft does not grant intermediaries power to deny freedoms of downstream recipients. it doesn't prohibit that either: copyright does. remove copyright, and copyleft becomes ineffective: nobody would need a license to adapt or distribute any more, so the delimitations to the permissions put forth in the license text are irrelevant. that's a feature, not a bug.
     
     but unethical-source licenses exploit another bug, in people's understanding of how copyright works. people have been misled to believe that a license is required to run software, and laypeople, misguided by that belief, have tried to apply copyleft-like constraints to something that is not exclusively reserved to authors. when it comes to running software, copyright law only requires that the copy be obtained legally, so the provisions in unethical-source licenses that attempt to constrain the right to execute are about as inoperant as copyleft would be under no copyright.
     
     so, you see, it's a misguided analogy because it purports to impose in an author-itarian way something that societies should adopt democratically and collectively; it's a false analogy because it fails to understand the primary purpose of enabling and respecting freedom and autonomy, disabling and countering an unjust law no further than needed to that end, while leaving the effects of the unjust law in place to not empower abusers; and it's broken because, failing to understand how copyright and copyleft work, unethical-source licenses are ineffective, misleading, and fail entirely to serve their stated purpose.
     
     they're a well-meant disaster
     翠星石 likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Lars Marowsky-Brée 😷 (larsmb@mastodon.online)'s status on Tuesday, 19-Nov-2024 06:04:19 JST Lars Marowsky-Brée 😷

     in reply to

     • Alexandre Oliva

     @lxo Copyleft does not give up copyright, and it very much restricts how software may be distributed or used (legally).
     And yes, it'd be lovely if societies adopted human rights more instead of rolling them back. Especially those authoritarian regimes excel at that.
     One can also argue that they wouldn't care anyway (as they so often don't with inconvenient laws), so refusing to associate with them is probably be the only move.
     (Which includes not taking their patches.)

   • Embed this notice
     Alexandre Oliva (lxo@gnusocial.jp)'s status on Tuesday, 19-Nov-2024 06:33:01 JST Alexandre Oliva

     in reply to
     copyleft really doesn't restrict, copyright does. copyleft only delimits the permissions so that everyone can do whatever they wish with the software (freedom), but without granting them power to deny that freedom of others (power). without that grant, they can't abuse others because copyright won't allow them: that power remains reserved to authors, as even democratic societies adopted.
     
     now, "use" is a loaded term. a lot of laypeople people misunderstand that as running, but under copyright law, it means adapting, modifying, using parts or the whole of the work to make others. enjoying the work (reading, listening, watching, running) are not reserved. this means copyright law does NOT empower author-itarians to dictate terms of use (execution), only terms of use (adapt, modify). that's why those who wish to dictate such terms resort to contracts (AKA licensing agreements) that, along with permissions to do activities that copyright law reserves exclusively to authors, establish obligations that are alien to copyrights, and require explicit assent, such as click on "I agree", breaking a seal or such.
     
     now, not taking their patches, or not even looking at them, may be foolish. they may have valuable contributions to make, even if operating under oppressive regimes, or even while holding repproachable ideas in their minds. someone once said something about hating the sin, not the sinner; someone more laic said something about not imposing collective punishments. human rights that people often forget when they're driven by (under influence of) propaganda and moral panics