14 ms·

Why? The creators created the software, they can put any conditions they please on how others might use it. They're under no moral or legal obligation to allow

Why? The creators created the software, they can put any conditions they please on how others might use it. They're under no moral or legal obligation to allow people to use the fruits of their labors, except as they permit.

diegoperini 5y ago
> they can put any conditions they please on how others might use it Isn't it "how they sell it" instead of "how they use it"? Edit: Also, "how" doesn't necessarily mean "what for".
- margalabargala 5y ago
  It is not. The license in questions says "if you use this software in a way we don't like, we can revoke your license". Nothing to do with selling it.
ekianjo 5y ago
> they can put any conditions they please on how others might use it. Yeah, and that's not called free software, Free Software is about empowering end users, not the creator.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
eterevsky 5y ago
They can, which doesn't mean they should. Also, I think a person has a mortal obligation to allow that their political position is at least partially flawed.
- madaxe_again 5y ago
  Would you say that you should have to work with every potential client who ever approaches you, whether or not they intend to pay, and whether or not they set fire to your dog last fall?
  - ipaddr 5y ago
    Should you be allowed to only sell to white men? It cuts many ways.
    - blitzar 5y ago
      If it is fake tan for men, are you obliged to find some black customers?
      - ipaddr 5y ago
        Can you sell it and later find out a black man is going to use it and prevent that man from using it?
- dboreham 5y ago
  The context of this thread is way way beyond "political position".
- andrepd 5y ago
  I don't get it. What does "allowing that one's politics is partially flawed" have to do with not wanting one's project used for surveillance, weapons control, etc?
  - Clubber 5y ago
    I think 1 and 2 are more the issue, but possibly all of them. They are all loose definitions that mean different things to different people. I think it would limit serious uptake once a legal department gets a hold of it. (1) discriminating against marginalized communities What does this mean? I bet I could get several different answers. Old people are marginalized by agism in tech, does this mean tech companies can't use this? How would they prove they don't marginalize old people? (2) building tools that disingenuously manipulate public opinion Ditto. To me this means no political party or marketing/advertising department can use this. Probably most news outlets as well. (3) building tools of mass surveillance and prediction to repress the rights of people Rights defined by whom? US Constitution? Right not to be offended? Rights granted by the Taliban or ISIS? Communist China? (4) building tools that control weapons, including tools that automate the deployment, operation, and targeting of weapons. I think most people can get on board with this one, unless we were attacked in earnest by a strong military foe.
  - krferriter 5y ago
    If you have a political position that all weapons are bad and all surveillance is bad then I think that is a deeply flawed viewpoint. What we want to avoid is improper use of weapons and surveillance. Where those things go into the realm of abuse. Of course, "abuse" is a subjective word for these things too, but I think there's a general consensus that some things are bad.
    - krageon 5y ago
      > What we want to avoid is improper use of weapons and surveillance All use of weapons and surveillance is abusive, so what you are saying "we" (who?) want is not something that I find reasonable.
- nuerow 5y ago
  > They can, which doesn't mean they should. Why? I mean, don't you believe you have a say on who you grant permission to use your intellectual property? > Also, I think a person has a mortal obligation to allow that their political position is at least partially flawed. This assertion makes no sense. You should not be forced to help advance anyone's goals when they are diametrically opposite to what you believe in and can be outright hostile towards you and your loved ones.
  - margalabargala 5y ago
    > Why? I mean, don't you believe you have a say on who you grant permission to use your intellectual property? If the author of some software has a general good-faith position that others should use their software, then the conditions they associate with that software fall on a continuum from "reasonable to "unreasonable". The MIT license is at the reasonable end. Saying "give me ten million dollars for this ROT13 algorithm" is at the unreasonable end. When the person you replied to said: > They can, which doesn't mean they should. I think they were saying they personally considered the terms of the license at the "unreasonable" end. I don't disagree- saying "you can use this for now, but have to stop immediately if I or anyone I might sell this to say so" seems at least borderline unreasonable. It certainly isn't "free software", though being wrapped in what is otherwise the Blue Oak license they're kind of hiding their non-free-ness. I think this is where I mostly take issue- it feels like the project is attempting to portray itself as a free software project, when it is not.
    - nuerow 5y ago
      > If the author of some software has a general good-faith position (...) The "good-faith position" weasel words only serve to try to fabricate and cast doubt on the morality of a decision on how your work can and should be used, and only because you find it inconvenient. For some reason, your argument completely eliminates the author from the decision process. Do you find that to be fair or in good faith? Meanwhile, I never saw anyone attack musicians based on "morality" for refusing to authorize the use of their work by specific politicians or specific election campaigns, even when authors only claim personal preferences or even prefering other candidates.
- Kye 5y ago
  Believing in human rights is only political because certain normal human biological variations and geographic distributions have been politicized by people who want to use software to strengthen that politicization. Encoding reason regarding treatment of those variations and distributions in license agreements is a patch to address politicization.
dmos62 5y ago
The creators are themselves fruit of the society. It's short-sighted to grant them the privilege to withhold their fruit.
- emn13 5y ago
  While I agree wholeheartedly, since the overly-clever invention of copyright that ship has kind of sailed. The vast majority of IP is owner controlled, because a few people hundreds of years ago thought it would be cheaper to just throw things into the court system, rather than deal with taxation, subsidies, and other regulation. And way back then - when courts where a thing, but a broad tax base was not, and in any case society didn't have the kind of near-instant communication networks available now - that might even have made sense.
- simondotau 5y ago
  And yet society grants this privilege; rather pervasively in fact.
- madaxe_again 5y ago
  Indeed. I would like your life savings, please, as I too am part of society. Venmo or PayPal?
- andrepd 5y ago
  Sure, but we do that all the time don't we? It's called private property. I agree with your intention, but there's a balance to be struck between individual contributions and those of wider society.
- mdp2021 5y ago
  Really obscure: be more clear. The creators are not simply the outcome of a populated space but of its navigation, through orientation, implying the sought, the accepted and the refused. Their «fruit» is produced accordingly - and not just "owing to society", but also "in spite of it" - and represents an intention, which is conditional to the product itself.
  - 5y ago
Y_Y 5y ago
What about a bakery forbidding sale of cakes to people whose marriage violates their "code of conduct"?
- mdp2021 5y ago
  Literally: a server should be free to decline services to specific clients - service is conditional. It should be easy for anyone in general to think of a list of clients one would not work for. Contextually: the point is more like "we do not accept that these springs we build can be used in landmines". It ecompasses the literal point, yet it is different - at least, it refuses the purpose, not the person.
  - Y_Y 5y ago
    That's not quite the same thing. Can a server or some other service provider refuse for any reason they like? What about protected classes? Should there be a whitelist of "good reasons"? Purpose and person are hard to separate too. Like if you will sell cakes to anyone, except that nobody will be given a cake if it's for a gay wedding.
roenxi 5y ago
Tolerance, right up to the limit where it actually starts hurting, is the best strategy for a peaceful and prosperous society. Trying to carve out little patches for your type of people and excluding that scary, evil other does not work. We're at Enlightenment+200 years here. I suppose shouldn't have to try make a defence of tolerating different opinions. If they want to license their software however then good luck to them, but nonetheless attempting to encode illiberal political beliefs into a software license is the wrong direction. The GPL is exactly the right approach. Freedom consistently outperforms all the ideas people swear are going to work better than freedom. Marginalised communities are not protected by documents that claim to protect marginalised communities. Fat lot of good documents have ever done. What protects marginalised communities is actual tolerance of differing opinions, and actual freedom. Ditto what protects us from surveillance. Fat lot of good all the paper protections against surveillance have done. Look at what America has built! Let alone China. Once again, the problem is a knee-jerk overreaction and paranoia in the ruling class when the correct answer is tolerance. Ditto weapons. Did Afghanistan benefit from code of conducts? No, what it needed was a bulkwork of people who said "lets really stretch ourselves not to hurt people who dislike us" at a critical moment. This license won't do what it claims. Best case, it is GPL+Fluff. Worst case, it becomes an exclusionary political tool. Ironically, it is likely that it will be wielded against marginalised communities.
- unanswered 5y ago
  Haven't you heard? The enlightenment is racist! We've moved beyond such outmoded ways of thinking.
  - captainredbeard 5y ago
    I think you are being sarcastic but, unfortunately, this is an all-too-common viewpoint among the so called "woke".
- nuerow 5y ago
  > Tolerance, right up to the limit where it actually starts hurting, is the best strategy for a peaceful and prosperous society. It really is not. Unbounded tolerance is how free and open societies commit suicide and succumb to authoritarian regimes where intolerance is the norm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance > If they want to license their software however then good luck to them, but nonetheless attempting to encode illiberal political beliefs into a software license is the wrong direction. The GPL is exactly the right approach. You're just asserting that refusing to help out authoritarian and outright xenophobic political movements further their goals "is the wrong approach" without any rationale or insight or argument at all. Meanwhile, you're citing the GPL which is a highly political license.
cabalamat 5y ago
> The creators created the software, they can put any conditions they please on how others might use it. Indeed so, they have that right. I personally wouldn't consider using code licensed like this, because even if I 100% agreed with the CoC and Steering Committee, both might change over time (the CoC says "We expect the Code of Conduct to be a living document") and I have no idea who'll be on the Steering Committee in 5-10 years time, and whoever it is will be able to pull the rug from under my feet at a whim.
- blitzar 5y ago
  Is ones liscence based on the values of when it is granted or reviewed every day? A bit like paying $100 for some software but a year later being told they now think you should pay $5000.
  - tatersolid 5y ago
    > A bit like paying $100 for some software but a year later being told they now think you should pay $5000. Atlassian has a patent on that business process.
coldtea 5y ago
>They're under no moral or legal obligation to allow people to use the fruits of their labors, except as they permit. Whether they're under a moral or legal obligation depends on the moral code (not the same across people in the same country, much less in different countries) and the legal code. For example, if they had a condition that Women, Gays, Jews or Blacks should not use it? Can they "put any conditions they please" including the above? What would you say about this "morally"? I know what most would say: that they have a moral obligation to not put such a condition. And it would not be legal either, in many jurisdictions at least.
hellisothers 5y ago
Ignoring the philosophical issues what about just the bureaucratic nightmare of trying to use software like that? Especially as the “terms of use” change, nobody would want to use any of this software in a critical system.

diegoperini 5y ago

> they can put any conditions they please on how others might use it Isn't it "how they sell it" instead of "how they use it"? Edit: Also, "how" doesn't necessarily mean "what for".

margalabargala 5y ago
It is not. The license in questions says "if you use this software in a way we don't like, we can revoke your license". Nothing to do with selling it.

ekianjo 5y ago

> they can put any conditions they please on how others might use it. Yeah, and that's not called free software, Free Software is about empowering end users, not the creator.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

eterevsky 5y ago

They can, which doesn't mean they should. Also, I think a person has a mortal obligation to allow that their political position is at least partially flawed.

madaxe_again 5y ago
Would you say that you should have to work with every potential client who ever approaches you, whether or not they intend to pay, and whether or not they set fire to your dog last fall?
- ipaddr 5y ago
  Should you be allowed to only sell to white men? It cuts many ways.
  - blitzar 5y ago
    If it is fake tan for men, are you obliged to find some black customers?
    - ipaddr 5y ago
      Can you sell it and later find out a black man is going to use it and prevent that man from using it?
dboreham 5y ago
The context of this thread is way way beyond "political position".
andrepd 5y ago
I don't get it. What does "allowing that one's politics is partially flawed" have to do with not wanting one's project used for surveillance, weapons control, etc?
- Clubber 5y ago
  I think 1 and 2 are more the issue, but possibly all of them. They are all loose definitions that mean different things to different people. I think it would limit serious uptake once a legal department gets a hold of it. (1) discriminating against marginalized communities What does this mean? I bet I could get several different answers. Old people are marginalized by agism in tech, does this mean tech companies can't use this? How would they prove they don't marginalize old people? (2) building tools that disingenuously manipulate public opinion Ditto. To me this means no political party or marketing/advertising department can use this. Probably most news outlets as well. (3) building tools of mass surveillance and prediction to repress the rights of people Rights defined by whom? US Constitution? Right not to be offended? Rights granted by the Taliban or ISIS? Communist China? (4) building tools that control weapons, including tools that automate the deployment, operation, and targeting of weapons. I think most people can get on board with this one, unless we were attacked in earnest by a strong military foe.
- krferriter 5y ago
  If you have a political position that all weapons are bad and all surveillance is bad then I think that is a deeply flawed viewpoint. What we want to avoid is improper use of weapons and surveillance. Where those things go into the realm of abuse. Of course, "abuse" is a subjective word for these things too, but I think there's a general consensus that some things are bad.
  - krageon 5y ago
    > What we want to avoid is improper use of weapons and surveillance All use of weapons and surveillance is abusive, so what you are saying "we" (who?) want is not something that I find reasonable.
nuerow 5y ago
> They can, which doesn't mean they should. Why? I mean, don't you believe you have a say on who you grant permission to use your intellectual property? > Also, I think a person has a mortal obligation to allow that their political position is at least partially flawed. This assertion makes no sense. You should not be forced to help advance anyone's goals when they are diametrically opposite to what you believe in and can be outright hostile towards you and your loved ones.
- margalabargala 5y ago
  > Why? I mean, don't you believe you have a say on who you grant permission to use your intellectual property? If the author of some software has a general good-faith position that others should use their software, then the conditions they associate with that software fall on a continuum from "reasonable to "unreasonable". The MIT license is at the reasonable end. Saying "give me ten million dollars for this ROT13 algorithm" is at the unreasonable end. When the person you replied to said: > They can, which doesn't mean they should. I think they were saying they personally considered the terms of the license at the "unreasonable" end. I don't disagree- saying "you can use this for now, but have to stop immediately if I or anyone I might sell this to say so" seems at least borderline unreasonable. It certainly isn't "free software", though being wrapped in what is otherwise the Blue Oak license they're kind of hiding their non-free-ness. I think this is where I mostly take issue- it feels like the project is attempting to portray itself as a free software project, when it is not.
  - nuerow 5y ago
    > If the author of some software has a general good-faith position (...) The "good-faith position" weasel words only serve to try to fabricate and cast doubt on the morality of a decision on how your work can and should be used, and only because you find it inconvenient. For some reason, your argument completely eliminates the author from the decision process. Do you find that to be fair or in good faith? Meanwhile, I never saw anyone attack musicians based on "morality" for refusing to authorize the use of their work by specific politicians or specific election campaigns, even when authors only claim personal preferences or even prefering other candidates.
Kye 5y ago
Believing in human rights is only political because certain normal human biological variations and geographic distributions have been politicized by people who want to use software to strengthen that politicization. Encoding reason regarding treatment of those variations and distributions in license agreements is a patch to address politicization.

dmos62 5y ago

The creators are themselves fruit of the society. It's short-sighted to grant them the privilege to withhold their fruit.

emn13 5y ago
While I agree wholeheartedly, since the overly-clever invention of copyright that ship has kind of sailed. The vast majority of IP is owner controlled, because a few people hundreds of years ago thought it would be cheaper to just throw things into the court system, rather than deal with taxation, subsidies, and other regulation. And way back then - when courts where a thing, but a broad tax base was not, and in any case society didn't have the kind of near-instant communication networks available now - that might even have made sense.
simondotau 5y ago
And yet society grants this privilege; rather pervasively in fact.
madaxe_again 5y ago
Indeed. I would like your life savings, please, as I too am part of society. Venmo or PayPal?
andrepd 5y ago
Sure, but we do that all the time don't we? It's called private property. I agree with your intention, but there's a balance to be struck between individual contributions and those of wider society.
mdp2021 5y ago
Really obscure: be more clear. The creators are not simply the outcome of a populated space but of its navigation, through orientation, implying the sought, the accepted and the refused. Their «fruit» is produced accordingly - and not just "owing to society", but also "in spite of it" - and represents an intention, which is conditional to the product itself.
- 5y ago

Y_Y 5y ago

What about a bakery forbidding sale of cakes to people whose marriage violates their "code of conduct"?

mdp2021 5y ago
Literally: a server should be free to decline services to specific clients - service is conditional. It should be easy for anyone in general to think of a list of clients one would not work for. Contextually: the point is more like "we do not accept that these springs we build can be used in landmines". It ecompasses the literal point, yet it is different - at least, it refuses the purpose, not the person.
- Y_Y 5y ago
  That's not quite the same thing. Can a server or some other service provider refuse for any reason they like? What about protected classes? Should there be a whitelist of "good reasons"? Purpose and person are hard to separate too. Like if you will sell cakes to anyone, except that nobody will be given a cake if it's for a gay wedding.

roenxi 5y ago

Tolerance, right up to the limit where it actually starts hurting, is the best strategy for a peaceful and prosperous society. Trying to carve out little patches for your type of people and excluding that scary, evil other does not work. We're at Enlightenment+200 years here. I suppose shouldn't have to try make a defence of tolerating different opinions. If they want to license their software however then good luck to them, but nonetheless attempting to encode illiberal political beliefs into a software license is the wrong direction. The GPL is exactly the right approach. Freedom consistently outperforms all the ideas people swear are going to work better than freedom. Marginalised communities are not protected by documents that claim to protect marginalised communities. Fat lot of good documents have ever done. What protects marginalised communities is actual tolerance of differing opinions, and actual freedom. Ditto what protects us from surveillance. Fat lot of good all the paper protections against surveillance have done. Look at what America has built! Let alone China. Once again, the problem is a knee-jerk overreaction and paranoia in the ruling class when the correct answer is tolerance. Ditto weapons. Did Afghanistan benefit from code of conducts? No, what it needed was a bulkwork of people who said "lets really stretch ourselves not to hurt people who dislike us" at a critical moment. This license won't do what it claims. Best case, it is GPL+Fluff. Worst case, it becomes an exclusionary political tool. Ironically, it is likely that it will be wielded against marginalised communities.

unanswered 5y ago
Haven't you heard? The enlightenment is racist! We've moved beyond such outmoded ways of thinking.
- captainredbeard 5y ago
  I think you are being sarcastic but, unfortunately, this is an all-too-common viewpoint among the so called "woke".
nuerow 5y ago
> Tolerance, right up to the limit where it actually starts hurting, is the best strategy for a peaceful and prosperous society. It really is not. Unbounded tolerance is how free and open societies commit suicide and succumb to authoritarian regimes where intolerance is the norm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance > If they want to license their software however then good luck to them, but nonetheless attempting to encode illiberal political beliefs into a software license is the wrong direction. The GPL is exactly the right approach. You're just asserting that refusing to help out authoritarian and outright xenophobic political movements further their goals "is the wrong approach" without any rationale or insight or argument at all. Meanwhile, you're citing the GPL which is a highly political license.

cabalamat 5y ago

> The creators created the software, they can put any conditions they please on how others might use it. Indeed so, they have that right. I personally wouldn't consider using code licensed like this, because even if I 100% agreed with the CoC and Steering Committee, both might change over time (the CoC says "We expect the Code of Conduct to be a living document") and I have no idea who'll be on the Steering Committee in 5-10 years time, and whoever it is will be able to pull the rug from under my feet at a whim.

blitzar 5y ago
Is ones liscence based on the values of when it is granted or reviewed every day? A bit like paying $100 for some software but a year later being told they now think you should pay $5000.
- tatersolid 5y ago
  > A bit like paying $100 for some software but a year later being told they now think you should pay $5000. Atlassian has a patent on that business process.

coldtea 5y ago

>They're under no moral or legal obligation to allow people to use the fruits of their labors, except as they permit. Whether they're under a moral or legal obligation depends on the moral code (not the same across people in the same country, much less in different countries) and the legal code. For example, if they had a condition that Women, Gays, Jews or Blacks should not use it? Can they "put any conditions they please" including the above? What would you say about this "morally"? I know what most would say: that they have a moral obligation to not put such a condition. And it would not be legal either, in many jurisdictions at least.

hellisothers 5y ago

Ignoring the philosophical issues what about just the bureaucratic nightmare of trying to use software like that? Especially as the “terms of use” change, nobody would want to use any of this software in a critical system.