3 ms·

I do get why you were downvoted; because it's easy for readers to assume that open source logically HAS to mean open to every dictator, too. But it doesn't. You

I do get why you were downvoted; because it's easy for readers to assume that open source logically HAS to mean open to every dictator, too. But it doesn't. You're right about that. We could have "friendly nation" or "no pirate nation" open source licenses that do not give North Korea, Iran, Russia, etc massive free software gifts to help them oppress their citizenry. Logically, there didn't have to be a North Korean Linux (which there is.) Such licenses wouldn't extend any rights to citizens of rogue countries, or to non-citizens while in such countries, nor entities (including companies) with control or ownership ties to rogue countries, or, say, countries which jail or execute LGBTQ. (At the very least, we don't have to extend a license without payment and contracts.) There are risks to friendly-nation or no-rogue-nation licenses, granted; but there are nasty consequences to handing more and sharper knives every year to rogue countries, too. Whether one likes it or not, an executive order from Biden could perhaps make that happen tomorrow.

dralley 5y ago
Seems rather pointless since it would be totally unenforcable. As if North Korea, the #1 producer of counterfeit US currency worldwide, is going to respect IP rights. Likewise with Russia and China. The same logic applies to the US too, by the way. I don't think the NSA thought too hard about e.g. whether backdooring Cisco routers was in violation of any IP laws - I doubt they'd care much about the contents of LICENSE.txt. Complete exercise in futility.
- Nomentatus 5y ago
  Much more enforceable than you'd think, since trade treaties don't allow countries to widely violate licenses. Not to mention that products can't be shipped from rogue countries to the rest of the world with such software, say an embedded OS. What doesn't have a chip in it, now?
  - realityking 5y ago
    How many treaties like this is North Korea a signatory of? And if they are a member of any, how much do they care about breaching them considering they‘re already under comprehensive sanctions?
    - Nomentatus 5y ago
      Russia, China, Iran - all still rely heavily on international trade treaties. North Korea not so much, true.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
spijdar 5y ago
This idea has been strongly rejected by the FSF/GNU group. Now, they don't have magical sovereignty over the word "open source", but as commonly used, especially in "these parts of the woods", most people will think of Open Source == FOSS, which with no uncertainty intentionally allows bad people to use it. This is one of the things that has gotten RMS in hot water, and when push comes to shove is a pretty unpopular opinion, but is deeply embedded in the GNU GPL and BSD sense of "open source". There are multiple "don't be evil" licenses, with varying types of stipulations. Some literally say "don't be evil". There was one license that made the rounds here on HN a while back that said something to the effect of "you must accept the authority of the Christian Bible". These are controversial at best, and disliked in part because they're often extremely vague, and very questionably enforceable. Trying to spell out the specific moral or legal stipulations that would prevent one from using software is ... more doable from a legal perspective, but still opposed by FSF/GNU types, because it feels contrarian to the free software movement, and a general distrust for governments and government regulations. Taking people's software freedom away because of where they're born rubs some people the wrong way. Not sure exactly how I feel about the issue as a whole, I don't buy wholesale into Stallman's ideology, but it's something worth considering.

dralley 5y ago

Seems rather pointless since it would be totally unenforcable. As if North Korea, the #1 producer of counterfeit US currency worldwide, is going to respect IP rights. Likewise with Russia and China. The same logic applies to the US too, by the way. I don't think the NSA thought too hard about e.g. whether backdooring Cisco routers was in violation of any IP laws - I doubt they'd care much about the contents of LICENSE.txt. Complete exercise in futility.

Nomentatus 5y ago
Much more enforceable than you'd think, since trade treaties don't allow countries to widely violate licenses. Not to mention that products can't be shipped from rogue countries to the rest of the world with such software, say an embedded OS. What doesn't have a chip in it, now?
- realityking 5y ago
  How many treaties like this is North Korea a signatory of? And if they are a member of any, how much do they care about breaching them considering they‘re already under comprehensive sanctions?
  - Nomentatus 5y ago
    Russia, China, Iran - all still rely heavily on international trade treaties. North Korea not so much, true.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

spijdar 5y ago

This idea has been strongly rejected by the FSF/GNU group. Now, they don't have magical sovereignty over the word "open source", but as commonly used, especially in "these parts of the woods", most people will think of Open Source == FOSS, which with no uncertainty intentionally allows bad people to use it. This is one of the things that has gotten RMS in hot water, and when push comes to shove is a pretty unpopular opinion, but is deeply embedded in the GNU GPL and BSD sense of "open source". There are multiple "don't be evil" licenses, with varying types of stipulations. Some literally say "don't be evil". There was one license that made the rounds here on HN a while back that said something to the effect of "you must accept the authority of the Christian Bible". These are controversial at best, and disliked in part because they're often extremely vague, and very questionably enforceable. Trying to spell out the specific moral or legal stipulations that would prevent one from using software is ... more doable from a legal perspective, but still opposed by FSF/GNU types, because it feels contrarian to the free software movement, and a general distrust for governments and government regulations. Taking people's software freedom away because of where they're born rubs some people the wrong way. Not sure exactly how I feel about the issue as a whole, I don't buy wholesale into Stallman's ideology, but it's something worth considering.