4 ms·
Sure, but I'd differentiate somewhat between "open-source software", (i.e. ESR) and "free software" i.e. RMS. Which is why I did not use FOSS, but free-software
by AsyncAwait 7y ago
Sure, but I'd differentiate somewhat between "open-source software", (i.e. ESR) and "free software" i.e. RMS. Which is why I did not use FOSS, but free-software explicitly. Maybe it's even better to narrow it down to copyleft only.
Open-source is not at all concerned with what's ethical. It's free-software made corporate-friendly. Free software certainly is a bit different, if you for example look at the sort of campaigns the Free Software Foundation advocates for, there's a lot of political campaigning that has to do with ethics.
You cannot reasonably restrict software for 'no evil use' as that definition is subjective and open to abuse, but the FSF is definitely more concerned with software ethics than the OSI.
- glangdale 7y agoYes, but neither group seems to regard "oh geez, my Kalman filter code is being used to build baby-killing rocket drones" as part of the range of ethical questions that software licensing might cover. I'm not saying that either group on the free/open source software spectrum should be engaging with this issue or that it would be helpful if they did ("Apache License Variant Number 57, No Babykilling Plz!") but one of the aspects of free or open source software is that you have pretty much zero ability to stop what some folks might consider highly unethical or immoral uses of one's software.
- glangdale 7y agoAlso, "no evil use" restrictions are subjective, but so what? You could be quite specific here ("no military use", "no surveillance use"). Choosing not to engage here is itself a decision with moral and ethical components (I'm not sure I disagree with it).