4 ms·

The Hippocratic License

5 points by pbiggar 7y ago

pbiggar 7y ago
I remember a Douglas Crockford (the "JS: the good parts" author) talk where he had added a similar clause to the license for jslint. It said it couldn't be used for evil. And then IBM asked for an exemption. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Crockford#%22Good,_not_Evil%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Crockford#%22Good,_not...
h2odragon 7y ago
> The software may not be used by individuals, corporations, governments, or other groups for systems or activities that actively and knowingly endanger, harm, or otherwise threaten the physical, mental, economic, or general well-being of underprivileged individuals or groups. who defines "underprivileged?" How is this any better than MIT + "Unless I dont like you; then fuck off" ... in fact, how is it different?
throwaway98sf4 7y ago
Allow me to explain the many faults of this license, using the original Greek Hippocratic oath as an example: > I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgment, but never with a view to injury and wrong-doing. Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion. The original Hippocratic oath, even if it's not in vogue today, explicitly defined physician assisted suicide and abortion as "harm". I'm going to take a flying leap here that Ehmke is probably pro-choice rather than pro-life (not sure about Ehmke's stance on physician assisted suicide, but the general read one has of progressives is they're generally in favor). > The software may not be used by individuals, corporations, governments, or other groups for systems or activities that actively and knowingly endanger, harm, or otherwise threaten the physical, mental, economic, or general well-being of underprivileged individuals or groups. Under certain people's definitions (certainly Hippocrates', or at least whoever was responsible for the text of his oath), using software with this license in any activity related to furnishing abortions or physician-assisted suicide would be a violation of this license. In other words, great, you don't want bad people to harm vulnerable people with your software. Now please define "bad", "vulnerable", and most crucially, "harm."
caspervonb 7y ago
Hm why is the domain "first"? This is definitively not a first, seems to be more or less a copy-paste of previous "no-harm" efforts. This is the first time I've seen one with a link to patreon attached to it however which is... interesting. > * The software may not be used by individuals, corporations, governments, or other groups for systems or activities that actively and knowingly endanger, harm, or otherwise threaten the physical, mental, economic, or general well-being of underprivileged individuals or groups. This is basically a fuck-off clause that's not well defined, I doubt it's even remotely enforceable. For example, one can argue with pretty solid references to studies that Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and other social media platforms are knowingly endangering and harming the mental well-being of all it's users, and they do it for profit.

5 points by pbiggar 7y ago

I remember a Douglas Crockford (the "JS: the good parts" author) talk where he had added a similar clause to the license for jslint. It said it couldn't be used for evil. And then IBM asked for an exemption. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Crockford#%22Good,_not_Evil%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Crockford#%22Good,_not...

h2odragon 7y ago

> The software may not be used by individuals, corporations, governments, or other groups for systems or activities that actively and knowingly endanger, harm, or otherwise threaten the physical, mental, economic, or general well-being of underprivileged individuals or groups. who defines "underprivileged?" How is this any better than MIT + "Unless I dont like you; then fuck off" ... in fact, how is it different?

throwaway98sf4 7y ago

Allow me to explain the many faults of this license, using the original Greek Hippocratic oath as an example: > I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgment, but never with a view to injury and wrong-doing. Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion. The original Hippocratic oath, even if it's not in vogue today, explicitly defined physician assisted suicide and abortion as "harm". I'm going to take a flying leap here that Ehmke is probably pro-choice rather than pro-life (not sure about Ehmke's stance on physician assisted suicide, but the general read one has of progressives is they're generally in favor). > The software may not be used by individuals, corporations, governments, or other groups for systems or activities that actively and knowingly endanger, harm, or otherwise threaten the physical, mental, economic, or general well-being of underprivileged individuals or groups. Under certain people's definitions (certainly Hippocrates', or at least whoever was responsible for the text of his oath), using software with this license in any activity related to furnishing abortions or physician-assisted suicide would be a violation of this license. In other words, great, you don't want bad people to harm vulnerable people with your software. Now please define "bad", "vulnerable", and most crucially, "harm."

caspervonb 7y ago

Hm why is the domain "first"? This is definitively not a first, seems to be more or less a copy-paste of previous "no-harm" efforts. This is the first time I've seen one with a link to patreon attached to it however which is... interesting. > * The software may not be used by individuals, corporations, governments, or other groups for systems or activities that actively and knowingly endanger, harm, or otherwise threaten the physical, mental, economic, or general well-being of underprivileged individuals or groups. This is basically a fuck-off clause that's not well defined, I doubt it's even remotely enforceable. For example, one can argue with pretty solid references to studies that Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and other social media platforms are knowingly endangering and harming the mental well-being of all it's users, and they do it for profit.