5 ms·

This attitude disturbs me, it tries to absolve responsibility by denying the possibility that responsible behavior is possible. That's not just obviously false,

This attitude disturbs me, it tries to absolve responsibility by denying the possibility that responsible behavior is possible. That's not just obviously false, whole troves of law cover exactly this point, individuals and corporations have responsibility that follows their products.

umvi 6y ago
Your attitude disturbs me. You want the ability to yank the rug out from under individuals and corporations if they ever do something that runs afoul of your personal morality system. How do I know your sense of morality isn't capricious and subject to the whims of twitter mobs? You could destroy my whole business if you arbitrarily deem my current or past actions immoral. For that reason, I will never, ever use software with a license like that. Therefore, I will never, ever create software with a license like that.
DSMan195276 6y ago
I just want to say I agree 100%. All these arguments that people are making that you can just absolve yourself from responsibility for anything you create because "you don't know what they'll do with it" worries me. Sure, a JS Linter is probably not a thing to be worried about, and adding an entry to your software license doesn't really help, but people (and developers) are asked to do arguably bad things, and we should encourage people to use their moral judgement in deciding whether to do something rather than just decide "I'm not responsible, so it doesn't matter". I think it's also somewhat interesting to compare these comments against the ones on articles where we find out a company is helping China (or a different country) censor their website, either locally or globally. In those situations people are upset they were willing to do it - but why wouldn't they if they have no moral responsibility for what they're making and it brings in more dollars? Someone in those companies had to approve it and eventually add those lines of code or those entries in a database, and good or bad they should be willing to stand up for those decisions and say no if they truly disagree with what they're doing. They are, quite literally, our last line of defense against such actions - and it might not be "fair" to them, but it is reality.
- umvi 6y ago
  I don't think Linus Torvalds loses sleep at night just because North Korea has created a controlled linux distribution for use in their country[0]. Would you if you were the creator of Linux? If so, what would you have done that Linus Torvalds didn't do? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Star_OS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Star_OS
  - DSMan195276 6y ago
    Your example is so simplistic, not all situations are so passive and indirect. Here's some better ones: Do you think Linus would be willing to adding a driver for a USB device developed by North Korea that could or would be used by them for nefarious purposes? Do you think he would be willing to adding code that would make it easier for the NSA to spy on Linux users? Do you think he would be willing to add code to track Linux usage? Do you think he would continue to develop and work on Linux if it turned out North Korea was the only user of it? Not just one of, but the sole consumer? The real world involves actual hard problems and questions, and in some cases (In Linus's case, probably more often than not) your choices will have a direct impact on people. And while I can't tell you Linus's answers for those questions, it's not the answers that matter. What's important is that he should be willing to stand up for those decisions. It shouldn't be acceptable to us or him for him to simply throw his hands in the air and say "well I don't have any responsibility here so who cares how this software is used".
    - umvi 6y ago
      That's the beauty of GPL. Linus doesn't get to decide whether or not people can add stuff to a Linux fork. And thus, Linus is not encumbered with being a moral gatekeeper. North Korea can add a driver to their own linux kernel that makes it easier to control torture devices if they want and Linus can reject that same driver from being merged to the upstream master copy if he wants. Software that is morally gatekept by its creator is not free (as in freedom) software. I value freedom more than I value "preventing harm" or whatever you're worried about. The whole world is trending toward less freedom (of speech, etc.) in the name of "preventing harm" which I think is a big mistake.

umvi 6y ago

Your attitude disturbs me. You want the ability to yank the rug out from under individuals and corporations if they ever do something that runs afoul of your personal morality system. How do I know your sense of morality isn't capricious and subject to the whims of twitter mobs? You could destroy my whole business if you arbitrarily deem my current or past actions immoral. For that reason, I will never, ever use software with a license like that. Therefore, I will never, ever create software with a license like that.

DSMan195276 6y ago

I just want to say I agree 100%. All these arguments that people are making that you can just absolve yourself from responsibility for anything you create because "you don't know what they'll do with it" worries me. Sure, a JS Linter is probably not a thing to be worried about, and adding an entry to your software license doesn't really help, but people (and developers) are asked to do arguably bad things, and we should encourage people to use their moral judgement in deciding whether to do something rather than just decide "I'm not responsible, so it doesn't matter". I think it's also somewhat interesting to compare these comments against the ones on articles where we find out a company is helping China (or a different country) censor their website, either locally or globally. In those situations people are upset they were willing to do it - but why wouldn't they if they have no moral responsibility for what they're making and it brings in more dollars? Someone in those companies had to approve it and eventually add those lines of code or those entries in a database, and good or bad they should be willing to stand up for those decisions and say no if they truly disagree with what they're doing. They are, quite literally, our last line of defense against such actions - and it might not be "fair" to them, but it is reality.

umvi 6y ago
I don't think Linus Torvalds loses sleep at night just because North Korea has created a controlled linux distribution for use in their country[0]. Would you if you were the creator of Linux? If so, what would you have done that Linus Torvalds didn't do? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Star_OS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Star_OS
- DSMan195276 6y ago
  Your example is so simplistic, not all situations are so passive and indirect. Here's some better ones: Do you think Linus would be willing to adding a driver for a USB device developed by North Korea that could or would be used by them for nefarious purposes? Do you think he would be willing to adding code that would make it easier for the NSA to spy on Linux users? Do you think he would be willing to add code to track Linux usage? Do you think he would continue to develop and work on Linux if it turned out North Korea was the only user of it? Not just one of, but the sole consumer? The real world involves actual hard problems and questions, and in some cases (In Linus's case, probably more often than not) your choices will have a direct impact on people. And while I can't tell you Linus's answers for those questions, it's not the answers that matter. What's important is that he should be willing to stand up for those decisions. It shouldn't be acceptable to us or him for him to simply throw his hands in the air and say "well I don't have any responsibility here so who cares how this software is used".
  - umvi 6y ago
    That's the beauty of GPL. Linus doesn't get to decide whether or not people can add stuff to a Linux fork. And thus, Linus is not encumbered with being a moral gatekeeper. North Korea can add a driver to their own linux kernel that makes it easier to control torture devices if they want and Linus can reject that same driver from being merged to the upstream master copy if he wants. Software that is morally gatekept by its creator is not free (as in freedom) software. I value freedom more than I value "preventing harm" or whatever you're worried about. The whole world is trending toward less freedom (of speech, etc.) in the name of "preventing harm" which I think is a big mistake.