3 ms·

I’m ethically torn here. On one hand, I ask myself what I would have done if I worked at IBM in the 1930s[0] On the other hand, as an LGBT person, I firmly be

by crmd 5y ago

I’m ethically torn here. On one hand, I ask myself what I would have done if I worked at IBM in the 1930s[0] On the other hand, as an LGBT person, I firmly believe that maximal freedom of speech protects vulnerable people from erasure. What this means for free software is a tough question. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_World_War_II

sonjaqql 5y ago
As an LGBT person, I fear that efforts like these are noble but empty. Assholes gonna still be assholes, Russia is gonna pirate software [0], and global Terraform users won't notice. Could this act actually awaken an IT team to the atrocities, in a way that makes a difference? [0] https://writing.kemitchell.com/2022/03/05/Russia-to-Legalize-Software-Piracy.html https://writing.kemitchell.com/2022/03/05/Russia-to-Legalize...
gzer0 5y ago
> "maximal freedom of speech protects vulnerable people from erasure" It's very easy to say things like this without fully comprehending all of the implications. Here's an example: Google restricted the usage of its own product, Google Maps, in an effort to halt the killing of Ukrainians by Russian armed forces, who were using Google Maps to launch their operations. This directly contradicts your claim.
- GreenWatermelon 5y ago
  Here, google didn't approache freedom of speech. They merely restricted the services of their product in a particular area
jacobr1 5y ago
I don't think there is a tradeoff. Not all actions constitute speech. Supporters of Russian actions should be able to spout off their horrible thoughts, but that doesn't mean companies the need to sell their goods or services to Russia. The two categories of acts aren't the same.
- crmd 5y ago
  Agree no one should be compelled to sell software to Russia, but the topic at hand is the dangers of normalizing national restrictions in open source licensing. Would you be comfortable with an open source license that bans Jewish users because of the Palestinian conflict?
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Would you be comfortable with an open source license that bans Jewish users because of the Palestinian conflict? Wouldn't “Israeli” be the more appropriate analog here?
    - crmd 5y ago
      I avoid online discussions about Israel, but I often hear activists state that American Jewish people are complicit in the Palestinian Conflict if their congregations provide economic support to “Zionist causes” such as birthright and financial aid to North African diaspora. My position is that it’s in the best interest of free software to allow free software to be used by anyone, even people who you hate or disagree with.
  - jacobr1 5y ago
    I think the resolution of the terraform-aws-eks example that started this discussion is a good one. The maintainer clearly stated his political in the README, but left the license alone without a country specific restriction. This is what I meant by separation between the speech, and commercial or OSS distribution. > Would you be comfortable with an open source license that bans Jewish users because of the Palestinian conflict? Comfortable is a loaded term here. No I wouldn't, but I could break that down to: Is it something that a maintainer should ... * legally be able to do - YES * consider likely to make a difference in the conflict - NO * consider to be good for the OSS ecosystem - NO * consider ethically wise - NO * still consider an OSS license - NO, but I think one could be constructed that had more generic restrictions against human rights abuses, or use by militaries, or similar general restriction. Would that meet OSI definitions? Not sure I care, but I wouldn't be too concerned even I think it would be better to keep things simple. It is worth noting that OSS distributed from the US as part of sale, still is subject to EAR. While we benefit from having a global community of OSS, local laws still apply in any number of circumstances.

by crmd 5y ago

sonjaqql 5y ago

As an LGBT person, I fear that efforts like these are noble but empty. Assholes gonna still be assholes, Russia is gonna pirate software [0], and global Terraform users won't notice. Could this act actually awaken an IT team to the atrocities, in a way that makes a difference? [0] https://writing.kemitchell.com/2022/03/05/Russia-to-Legalize-Software-Piracy.html https://writing.kemitchell.com/2022/03/05/Russia-to-Legalize...

gzer0 5y ago

> "maximal freedom of speech protects vulnerable people from erasure" It's very easy to say things like this without fully comprehending all of the implications. Here's an example: Google restricted the usage of its own product, Google Maps, in an effort to halt the killing of Ukrainians by Russian armed forces, who were using Google Maps to launch their operations. This directly contradicts your claim.

GreenWatermelon 5y ago
Here, google didn't approache freedom of speech. They merely restricted the services of their product in a particular area

jacobr1 5y ago

I don't think there is a tradeoff. Not all actions constitute speech. Supporters of Russian actions should be able to spout off their horrible thoughts, but that doesn't mean companies the need to sell their goods or services to Russia. The two categories of acts aren't the same.

crmd 5y ago
Agree no one should be compelled to sell software to Russia, but the topic at hand is the dangers of normalizing national restrictions in open source licensing. Would you be comfortable with an open source license that bans Jewish users because of the Palestinian conflict?
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Would you be comfortable with an open source license that bans Jewish users because of the Palestinian conflict? Wouldn't “Israeli” be the more appropriate analog here?
  - crmd 5y ago
    I avoid online discussions about Israel, but I often hear activists state that American Jewish people are complicit in the Palestinian Conflict if their congregations provide economic support to “Zionist causes” such as birthright and financial aid to North African diaspora. My position is that it’s in the best interest of free software to allow free software to be used by anyone, even people who you hate or disagree with.
- jacobr1 5y ago
  I think the resolution of the terraform-aws-eks example that started this discussion is a good one. The maintainer clearly stated his political in the README, but left the license alone without a country specific restriction. This is what I meant by separation between the speech, and commercial or OSS distribution. > Would you be comfortable with an open source license that bans Jewish users because of the Palestinian conflict? Comfortable is a loaded term here. No I wouldn't, but I could break that down to: Is it something that a maintainer should ... * legally be able to do - YES * consider likely to make a difference in the conflict - NO * consider to be good for the OSS ecosystem - NO * consider ethically wise - NO * still consider an OSS license - NO, but I think one could be constructed that had more generic restrictions against human rights abuses, or use by militaries, or similar general restriction. Would that meet OSI definitions? Not sure I care, but I wouldn't be too concerned even I think it would be better to keep things simple. It is worth noting that OSS distributed from the US as part of sale, still is subject to EAR. While we benefit from having a global community of OSS, local laws still apply in any number of circumstances.