3 ms·

I couldn't have written it better myself. On a related note, the person behind the Hippocratic License (HL) which they define as "a modified MIT license that s

I couldn't have written it better myself. On a related note, the person behind the Hippocratic License (HL) which they define as "a modified MIT license that specifically prohibits the use of open source software to harm others" was recently asked by OSI [1] to modify the language in the original document since it might've led people to wrongly believe that the aforementioned license was Open Source Software and that software distributed under it was Open Source Software. [1] https://archive.is/hKA41 https://archive.is/hKA41

sebst 7y ago
IANAL, but the HL reads to me as if you'd have to convict some entity of effectively breaking the human rights in order to prevent their use of your software. This sounds next to impossible, unless the entity is a war criminal,in which case a civil suit would be entirely pointless. Or do you even think there would - as an example - be a US court prohibit the use of some software for ICE? Such a court ruling would imply the US government acts against UN human rights. Which court would open this box for a software licence?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
johnisgood 7y ago
"harm others"... that is extremely subjective. Everyone can claim they have been harmed, say, psychologically or whatever. This is not going to end well. Oh well, I am not surprised.
- vincent-toups 7y ago
  There are many things which are subjective but that hardly means they are completely ungrounded from human consideration, even when it comes to the exercise of power. The (partial) subjectivity of a measurement isn't a good excuse to completely give up on the domain.
bitwize 7y ago
To which she replied effectively, "I know. That's the point. I'm trying to get the definition changed." https://mobile.twitter.com/CoralineAda/status/1176940605525712898 https://mobile.twitter.com/CoralineAda/status/11769406055257...

sebst 7y ago

IANAL, but the HL reads to me as if you'd have to convict some entity of effectively breaking the human rights in order to prevent their use of your software. This sounds next to impossible, unless the entity is a war criminal,in which case a civil suit would be entirely pointless. Or do you even think there would - as an example - be a US court prohibit the use of some software for ICE? Such a court ruling would imply the US government acts against UN human rights. Which court would open this box for a software licence?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

johnisgood 7y ago

"harm others"... that is extremely subjective. Everyone can claim they have been harmed, say, psychologically or whatever. This is not going to end well. Oh well, I am not surprised.

vincent-toups 7y ago
There are many things which are subjective but that hardly means they are completely ungrounded from human consideration, even when it comes to the exercise of power. The (partial) subjectivity of a measurement isn't a good excuse to completely give up on the domain.

bitwize 7y ago

To which she replied effectively, "I know. That's the point. I'm trying to get the definition changed." https://mobile.twitter.com/CoralineAda/status/1176940605525712898 https://mobile.twitter.com/CoralineAda/status/11769406055257...