6 ms·

Back in the '90s we got a dev kit for a microcontroller (Toshiba if I recall) that had language in the license that specifically forbade using the thing in terr

Back in the '90s we got a dev kit for a microcontroller (Toshiba if I recall) that had language in the license that specifically forbade using the thing in terrorist acts. So I don't think this is new.

smhenderson 7y ago
That’s not really them pushing an ethical position though IMO. That’s more of a cover their butt clause. It’s put in the terms under the belief that if someone does use their product in a terrorist act anyone who suffered from it can’t sue them as they expressly forbade the acts in their license.
- jessaustin 7y ago
  That might have been the intent, but it wouldn't work. Otherwise firearms would be sold with some sort of "I promise not to shoot anyone in circumstances that a court won't later approve" agreement.
  - extra88 7y ago
    Now that the Supreme Court has allowed the families of victims of Sandy Hook to sue a gun manufacturer, there will be a case that looks at their liability. https://www.npr.org/2019/11/12/778487920/supreme-court-allows-sandy-hook-families-case-against-remington-to-proceed https://www.npr.org/2019/11/12/778487920/supreme-court-allow...
    - pessimizer 7y ago
      But etching "we are not liable" on the side of the gun would not help.
      - extra88 7y ago
        Printing "this is not a toy" on dry cleaner bags doesn't help either and yet there it is.
    - DaiPlusPlus 7y ago
      Isn’t the argument that the firearms makers have some burden on responsibility for allegedly irresponsibly and intentionally marketed their guns to demographics known to be more likely to use them for unlawful reasons? I’m concerned about the ramifications if the court does decide that marketers cannot be held responsible for the conduct of their customers regardless of how their marketing department works. On the bright side, at least head-shops in Idaho can stop pretending people use bongs to inhale tobacco.
      - extra88 7y ago
        Yes, it's centered on the marketing. Some of it does sound irresponsible though it's hard for me to see how it gets to the point of liability for the actions of a single shooter. Maybe the industry will be more responsible or maybe they'll just come up with "fine print" to add, gun equivalents to "professional driver on closed course" or listing prescription drug side effects.
        DaiPlusPlus 7y ago
        There's been research lately over sctohastic terrorism - we may remember around the time of Gabrielle Giffords' shooting that the GOP were running ad-campaigns with visual imagery of gunsights, imploring their party base to "target" seats up for election. Tasteless at best.
gus_massa 7y ago
Most closed source licenses have restrictions, like "don't use this in a nuclear plant, or to control an airplane, ...". They have also restriction for countries and/or organizations the government doesn't like. It's fine because they are closed source. They can add any restriction they like, for example "don't use this on Monday", except when the restriction affect a protected class or the equivalent concept in other countries, like race or religion, or when the restriction can cause a tweetstorm. The problem is that these ethical licenses try to pass as open source licenses. For example the title in the page of the Hippocratic license is "An Ethical License for Open Source Projects". With these licenses the project is not "free software" or "open source software", it's just "source code available software".
- belorn 7y ago
  The licenses clearly do not pass the free software definition or the open source definition, but I don't think that is what the author is arguing. Their point is that the license is not legal and enforceable.

smhenderson 7y ago

That’s not really them pushing an ethical position though IMO. That’s more of a cover their butt clause. It’s put in the terms under the belief that if someone does use their product in a terrorist act anyone who suffered from it can’t sue them as they expressly forbade the acts in their license.

jessaustin 7y ago
That might have been the intent, but it wouldn't work. Otherwise firearms would be sold with some sort of "I promise not to shoot anyone in circumstances that a court won't later approve" agreement.
- extra88 7y ago
  Now that the Supreme Court has allowed the families of victims of Sandy Hook to sue a gun manufacturer, there will be a case that looks at their liability. https://www.npr.org/2019/11/12/778487920/supreme-court-allows-sandy-hook-families-case-against-remington-to-proceed https://www.npr.org/2019/11/12/778487920/supreme-court-allow...
  - pessimizer 7y ago
    But etching "we are not liable" on the side of the gun would not help.
    - extra88 7y ago
      Printing "this is not a toy" on dry cleaner bags doesn't help either and yet there it is.
  - DaiPlusPlus 7y ago
    Isn’t the argument that the firearms makers have some burden on responsibility for allegedly irresponsibly and intentionally marketed their guns to demographics known to be more likely to use them for unlawful reasons? I’m concerned about the ramifications if the court does decide that marketers cannot be held responsible for the conduct of their customers regardless of how their marketing department works. On the bright side, at least head-shops in Idaho can stop pretending people use bongs to inhale tobacco.
    - extra88 7y ago
      Yes, it's centered on the marketing. Some of it does sound irresponsible though it's hard for me to see how it gets to the point of liability for the actions of a single shooter. Maybe the industry will be more responsible or maybe they'll just come up with "fine print" to add, gun equivalents to "professional driver on closed course" or listing prescription drug side effects.
      - DaiPlusPlus 7y ago
        There's been research lately over sctohastic terrorism - we may remember around the time of Gabrielle Giffords' shooting that the GOP were running ad-campaigns with visual imagery of gunsights, imploring their party base to "target" seats up for election. Tasteless at best.

gus_massa 7y ago

Most closed source licenses have restrictions, like "don't use this in a nuclear plant, or to control an airplane, ...". They have also restriction for countries and/or organizations the government doesn't like. It's fine because they are closed source. They can add any restriction they like, for example "don't use this on Monday", except when the restriction affect a protected class or the equivalent concept in other countries, like race or religion, or when the restriction can cause a tweetstorm. The problem is that these ethical licenses try to pass as open source licenses. For example the title in the page of the Hippocratic license is "An Ethical License for Open Source Projects". With these licenses the project is not "free software" or "open source software", it's just "source code available software".

belorn 7y ago
The licenses clearly do not pass the free software definition or the open source definition, but I don't think that is what the author is arguing. Their point is that the license is not legal and enforceable.