5 ms·

It seems odd that we have generally accepted a view of what open source means that is fundamentally libertarian in character. How we got here makes sense - the

It seems odd that we have generally accepted a view of what open source means that is fundamentally libertarian in character. How we got here makes sense - the Microsoft wars and the battle for free software were once about how we retain control of our own technology. Now we are in a very different place where that control has been assured to some extent. Open source is now ubiquitous and so the ethical concerns we collectively focus on should perhaps extend beyond these old debates. Maybe it's time we examine our entrenched views on open source to allow for some more nuanced discussions about responsibility and ethics in the things we make. Just because it's open source clearly doesn't mean that I'm absolved of responsibility for how it's used; so why do all open source licences necessitate that I allow my work to be put to evil uses as well as good? Can we continue indefinitely with these hollow definitions of "freedom" that are devoid of any concept of responsibility or accountability for what we create?

luckylion 6y ago
> so why do all open source licences necessitate that I allow my work to be put to evil uses as well as good? Most likely because defining good and evil is very, very hard, and you don't want vague language in licences. "Not to be used by evil people" doesn't work, because all it takes is to say "I'm not evil, thanks". Saying "no military use" etc will also just open up a rabbit hole of what exactly is military use, and you don't want to have a lot of court cases, and you also don't want uncertainty, e.g. somebody building a SaaS product that then has to vet all customers whether they may have military contracts, even if it's only for catering at some event.
- benjaminjosephw 6y ago
  I've never known a good software engineer to run away from a problem because it's too hard. Ethics is hard - all the more reason to have smart people grapple with the issues rather than ignore them.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    There are different kinds of problems, and some are super hard to solve while also providing very little actual results. Creating a formula for your personal ethics with all of its intricacies AND putting that into a succinct licence that will be enforceable in court (and doesn't do more than you want it to) is probably one of those. It's reasonable to spend time on other things instead, especially since such a licence would be very individual, because very few people have the exact same views when you look at the details.
    - benjaminjosephw 6y ago
      There's a middle ground here. I don't need all of my individual ethical beliefs encoded in a software licence. I also don't think we have to stop short at the lowest common denominator of "freedom" without responsibility. Enough people share a similar enough concept of justice for another approach to be both possible and pragmatic. Whether you are up for the challenge of thinking through the implications of your contributions or not, you hold some of the responsibility for what you create. Avoiding deeper reflection on those contributions is a dangerous thing.
      - luckylion 6y ago
        > Enough people share a similar enough concept of justice for another approach to be both possible and pragmatic. The issue isn't so much in "can you and some number of other people generally agree on what you want", it's in putting that in clear terms into a licence that a judge (or anybody, really) can read and clearly say who is and isn't in violation. And you'll want to do it in such a way that it's not open to interpretation, doesn't hinge on specific words etc, and preferably you'll do it under 100 pages. It is hard. I believe that even agreement in what exactly you want isn't easy to achieve as the degrees of separation are hard to pin down. Plenty of people will agree to "no using this in drones that bomb people". Drones that only observe while other drones (or human-piloted jets) drop the bombs? Drones that aren't in the area but act as communication relays? A company that builds motors that, among others, are used in one of those drones? A company that builds desks for that drone-motor-company? And is this about all military things, or only those with offensive use, while e.g. a bunker-building company would be okay? What about a shoe manufacturer that sells to the army? You'll quickly find that the agreement is largest while it's vague and gets smaller while you try to draw clearer lines. At the same time, the more vague it is, the less will it be used because nobody wants to risk basing their things on something that depends on how a judge in some jurisdiciton understands some term. It's not always that nobody cares or doesn't want to spend the energy on doing it, sometimes it's just really hard. You're welcome to give it a go, I'm sure all efforts are welcome in the field.
Nasrudith 6y ago
What is the realistic alternative aside from being jealously paranoid hiding of all our works for fear that with effort somebody else might use it for evil? It essentially already requires guilds to remotely enforce and works to make the whole field weaker. The approach of deliberately keeping everyone ignorant as possible is in itself what many including myself would call evil. It is already a field of tinkerers, enforcement would essentially require a "guild structure" in a world that already doesn't cooperate and any who could enforce it in themselves would be evil. I can't help but roll my eyes at many of the so called ethical quandries because they are such obvious cases of scapegoating the actions of others. It is like trying to blame an olympic shooter for writing a book on safety and techniques for because the guy decided to spree shoot. How about blaming the original bad actors instead of leaping down the degrees of separation?

luckylion 6y ago

> so why do all open source licences necessitate that I allow my work to be put to evil uses as well as good? Most likely because defining good and evil is very, very hard, and you don't want vague language in licences. "Not to be used by evil people" doesn't work, because all it takes is to say "I'm not evil, thanks". Saying "no military use" etc will also just open up a rabbit hole of what exactly is military use, and you don't want to have a lot of court cases, and you also don't want uncertainty, e.g. somebody building a SaaS product that then has to vet all customers whether they may have military contracts, even if it's only for catering at some event.

benjaminjosephw 6y ago
I've never known a good software engineer to run away from a problem because it's too hard. Ethics is hard - all the more reason to have smart people grapple with the issues rather than ignore them.
- luckylion 6y ago
  There are different kinds of problems, and some are super hard to solve while also providing very little actual results. Creating a formula for your personal ethics with all of its intricacies AND putting that into a succinct licence that will be enforceable in court (and doesn't do more than you want it to) is probably one of those. It's reasonable to spend time on other things instead, especially since such a licence would be very individual, because very few people have the exact same views when you look at the details.
  - benjaminjosephw 6y ago
    There's a middle ground here. I don't need all of my individual ethical beliefs encoded in a software licence. I also don't think we have to stop short at the lowest common denominator of "freedom" without responsibility. Enough people share a similar enough concept of justice for another approach to be both possible and pragmatic. Whether you are up for the challenge of thinking through the implications of your contributions or not, you hold some of the responsibility for what you create. Avoiding deeper reflection on those contributions is a dangerous thing.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      > Enough people share a similar enough concept of justice for another approach to be both possible and pragmatic. The issue isn't so much in "can you and some number of other people generally agree on what you want", it's in putting that in clear terms into a licence that a judge (or anybody, really) can read and clearly say who is and isn't in violation. And you'll want to do it in such a way that it's not open to interpretation, doesn't hinge on specific words etc, and preferably you'll do it under 100 pages. It is hard. I believe that even agreement in what exactly you want isn't easy to achieve as the degrees of separation are hard to pin down. Plenty of people will agree to "no using this in drones that bomb people". Drones that only observe while other drones (or human-piloted jets) drop the bombs? Drones that aren't in the area but act as communication relays? A company that builds motors that, among others, are used in one of those drones? A company that builds desks for that drone-motor-company? And is this about all military things, or only those with offensive use, while e.g. a bunker-building company would be okay? What about a shoe manufacturer that sells to the army? You'll quickly find that the agreement is largest while it's vague and gets smaller while you try to draw clearer lines. At the same time, the more vague it is, the less will it be used because nobody wants to risk basing their things on something that depends on how a judge in some jurisdiciton understands some term. It's not always that nobody cares or doesn't want to spend the energy on doing it, sometimes it's just really hard. You're welcome to give it a go, I'm sure all efforts are welcome in the field.

Nasrudith 6y ago

What is the realistic alternative aside from being jealously paranoid hiding of all our works for fear that with effort somebody else might use it for evil? It essentially already requires guilds to remotely enforce and works to make the whole field weaker. The approach of deliberately keeping everyone ignorant as possible is in itself what many including myself would call evil. It is already a field of tinkerers, enforcement would essentially require a "guild structure" in a world that already doesn't cooperate and any who could enforce it in themselves would be evil. I can't help but roll my eyes at many of the so called ethical quandries because they are such obvious cases of scapegoating the actions of others. It is like trying to blame an olympic shooter for writing a book on safety and techniques for because the guy decided to spree shoot. How about blaming the original bad actors instead of leaping down the degrees of separation?