4 ms·

Anyone can add ethical stipulations to the license of their choice but the result is no longer a free software license. A license requiring a user to adhere to

Anyone can add ethical stipulations to the license of their choice but the result is no longer a free software license. A license requiring a user to adhere to the software developers' moral code is the opposite of a free software license. In your example regarding "weapons manufacturers;" in the United States the right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in the Constitution and interpreted by the courts as an inalienable human right. Your proposed software license would thus restrict the freedom of the user and is therefore non-free.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
geofft 7y ago
> Anyone can add ethical stipulations to the license of their choice but the result is no longer a free software license. Yes, of course. The question is whether we want to change that. Of course our current understanding of Free Software makes such a license outside its bounds. Of course the Four Freedoms and the OSD both prevent restrictions on use. But do the Four Freedoms and the OSD accurately capture what we really want out of free software? To be clear, I personally lean towards "yes, they still do," but I think it's absolutely healthy and important to talk about why they do. The OSD wasn't handed down by the gods on a mountaintop; it's a set of rules that we believe facilitate a broader social purpose, and we should be always willing to ask whether we still agree with that social purpose and whether we still think the rules get us there. (Also, it's true that "free software" might end up being the wrong term for a changed definition, but it still seems important that the free software community, including the FSF, participate in these discussions.)
- rubbingalcohol 7y ago
  If "free software" is the wrong term for the license then the discussions might not be relevant at all to the Free Software Foundation or the free software community. I highlighted right above how one of the desired use cases of this proposed "ethical" licensing model is to restrict a fundamental human right of the users of the software. In the best case, what we are talking about is not free software. In the worst case, there may be actors involved in these discussions hoping to use outrage mobs to destabilize the free software movement, in particular application code still licensed under GPLv2.
  - geofft 7y ago
    > If "free software" is the wrong term for the license then the discussions might not be relevant at all to the Free Software Foundation or the free software community. Arguing that free software as conventionally defined is better than what is being proposed is 100% within the mission of the Free Software Foundation. The FSF tells you how bad Windows is, even though Windows isn't free software. The FSF has a list of popular non-free licenses and tells you why they aren't free. Arguing that members of the free software community who are interested in other licenses should continue to write free software - and why - is also firmly within the mission of the FSF. If they have concerns over free software, responding to those concerns in good faith is the job of the FSF. I'm no less of a member of the free software community simply because I write proprietary code from 9 to 5 on weekdays. (If I were, there would be very little free software community, and it would be mostly driven by well-funded corporations and not by individuals.) Also, I'm of the opinion that you can accomplish the same goals by means other than licenses (e.g., better rules on who can participate in development), and I'm sympathetic to the goals. Shouldn't the Free Software Foundation be saying, if you want to achieve these goals, here is concretely how you can accomplish them using free software? If people are saying "free software cannot do X, we must abandon free software to do X," shouldn't it be an FSF priority to demonstrate that you can do X with free software? > In the worst case, there may be actors involved in these discussions hoping to use outrage mobs to destabilize the free software movement, in particular application code still licensed under GPLv2. I think if we're going to spin conspiracy theories, let's talk more about whether the NSA supported Richard Stallman as the spokesperson of the free software movement to ensure that it never gained mainstream acceptance by making sure the popular image of free software was some weirdo with bad personal hygiene, and how the community failure to get rid of him played right into government interests for decades. Sounds equally plausible.
michaelbrave 7y ago
The thing about freedoms is that they are collective cultural decisions and priorities. An extreme example slavery. The right to not be owned by someone is in direct contrast of someone else's right to property. We have collectively as a western society determined that was wrong and misguided, wars were fought over it to the point we consider it a ridiculous juxtaposition today. I believe the right to bear arms is at a similar crossroads with those who want the right to feel safe from the government and those who want to feel safe from others. Who's freedom is more important? Although I think these arguments are against what free software is, maybe it's a discussion worth having, maybe there is something that was missed.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

geofft 7y ago

> Anyone can add ethical stipulations to the license of their choice but the result is no longer a free software license. Yes, of course. The question is whether we want to change that. Of course our current understanding of Free Software makes such a license outside its bounds. Of course the Four Freedoms and the OSD both prevent restrictions on use. But do the Four Freedoms and the OSD accurately capture what we really want out of free software? To be clear, I personally lean towards "yes, they still do," but I think it's absolutely healthy and important to talk about why they do. The OSD wasn't handed down by the gods on a mountaintop; it's a set of rules that we believe facilitate a broader social purpose, and we should be always willing to ask whether we still agree with that social purpose and whether we still think the rules get us there. (Also, it's true that "free software" might end up being the wrong term for a changed definition, but it still seems important that the free software community, including the FSF, participate in these discussions.)

rubbingalcohol 7y ago
If "free software" is the wrong term for the license then the discussions might not be relevant at all to the Free Software Foundation or the free software community. I highlighted right above how one of the desired use cases of this proposed "ethical" licensing model is to restrict a fundamental human right of the users of the software. In the best case, what we are talking about is not free software. In the worst case, there may be actors involved in these discussions hoping to use outrage mobs to destabilize the free software movement, in particular application code still licensed under GPLv2.
- geofft 7y ago
  > If "free software" is the wrong term for the license then the discussions might not be relevant at all to the Free Software Foundation or the free software community. Arguing that free software as conventionally defined is better than what is being proposed is 100% within the mission of the Free Software Foundation. The FSF tells you how bad Windows is, even though Windows isn't free software. The FSF has a list of popular non-free licenses and tells you why they aren't free. Arguing that members of the free software community who are interested in other licenses should continue to write free software - and why - is also firmly within the mission of the FSF. If they have concerns over free software, responding to those concerns in good faith is the job of the FSF. I'm no less of a member of the free software community simply because I write proprietary code from 9 to 5 on weekdays. (If I were, there would be very little free software community, and it would be mostly driven by well-funded corporations and not by individuals.) Also, I'm of the opinion that you can accomplish the same goals by means other than licenses (e.g., better rules on who can participate in development), and I'm sympathetic to the goals. Shouldn't the Free Software Foundation be saying, if you want to achieve these goals, here is concretely how you can accomplish them using free software? If people are saying "free software cannot do X, we must abandon free software to do X," shouldn't it be an FSF priority to demonstrate that you can do X with free software? > In the worst case, there may be actors involved in these discussions hoping to use outrage mobs to destabilize the free software movement, in particular application code still licensed under GPLv2. I think if we're going to spin conspiracy theories, let's talk more about whether the NSA supported Richard Stallman as the spokesperson of the free software movement to ensure that it never gained mainstream acceptance by making sure the popular image of free software was some weirdo with bad personal hygiene, and how the community failure to get rid of him played right into government interests for decades. Sounds equally plausible.

michaelbrave 7y ago

The thing about freedoms is that they are collective cultural decisions and priorities. An extreme example slavery. The right to not be owned by someone is in direct contrast of someone else's right to property. We have collectively as a western society determined that was wrong and misguided, wars were fought over it to the point we consider it a ridiculous juxtaposition today. I believe the right to bear arms is at a similar crossroads with those who want the right to feel safe from the government and those who want to feel safe from others. Who's freedom is more important? Although I think these arguments are against what free software is, maybe it's a discussion worth having, maybe there is something that was missed.