3 ms·

That license is wild. It bans all sorts of activities and I can't imagine any company's lawyer signing off on it. Some examples of things that terminate your li

by seoaeu 4y ago

That license is wild. It bans all sorts of activities and I can't imagine any company's lawyer signing off on it. Some examples of things that terminate your license... * Serve in the military: "Be an entity or a representative, agent, affiliate, successor, attorney, or assign of an entity which conducts military activities;" * Sell anything to a police department: "Be an individual or entity, or a or a [sic] representative, agent, affiliate, successor, attorney, or assign of an individual or entity, that provides good or services to, or otherwise enters into any commercial contracts with, any local, state, or federal law enforcement agency;" * Distribute violent media: "Be an individual or entity, or a or a [sic] representative, agent, affiliate, successor, attorney, or assign of an individual or entity, that broadcasts messages promoting killing, torture, or other forms of extreme violence;" * Have a corporate charter that doesn't reserve enough board seats for low-pay workers: "Ensure that if the Licensee has a Board of Directors, 30% of Licensee's board seats are held by Workers paid no more than 200% of the compensation of the lowest paid Worker of the Licensee;" * Discriminate (even unintentionally) based on a protected class: "Discriminate on the basis of sex, gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, caste, age, medical disability or impairment, and/or any other like circumstances"

sascha_sl 4y ago
To be extra fair, the license is modular[1] now and the base version anchors itself mostly on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It it still, obviously, something most lawyers would advise against. That doesn't make the mind game of commercially licensing something dual licensed with this being equal to admitting you reserve the right to be unethical less entertaining. [1]: https://firstdonoharm.dev/version/3/0/license/license.md https://firstdonoharm.dev/version/3/0/license/license.md
- josephcsible 4y ago
  > licensing something dual licensed with this being equal to admitting you reserve the right to be unethical That's not actually equal, though, because this license prohibits a bunch of things that aren't actually unethical. For example, it prohibits any use by police, military, and basically anyone in Israel.
  - sascha_sl 4y ago
    What is unethical is often up to personal interpretation. I can make the case for all the things you listed. This is exactly why all of them are optional modules.
    - seoaeu 4y ago
      I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the vast majority of people do not consider it unethical for a country to enforce its laws or have a military. As for restricting use by Israelis, I'll just point out that the license itself considers it an ethical requirement to treat people equally regardless of their nationality.
      - sascha_sl 4y ago
        >I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the vast majority of people do not consider it unethical for a country to enforce its laws or have a military. Enforcing laws and the current sorry state of the police in the US (and elsewhere to different debrees) are not in a 1:1 relationship. >As for restricting use by Israelis, I'll just point out that the license itself considers it an ethical requirement to treat people equally regardless of their nationality. It doesn't restrict based on nationality. Read the license. It has an optional module to defer to the judgement of BDS. This is much more selective than whatever the US is doing to Cuba within the country but also includes a bunch of international companies that profit of what BDS considers unethical activity. (Not here to judge or assess the validity of the BDS list, but it does correspond to some people's notion of ethics)
        seoaeu 4y ago
        Who said anything about US police? The license prevents selling to any law enforcement agency in any country
        sascha_sl 4y ago
        It feels like you're taking half my answer and then strawman the remainder (here i mentioned other places quite explicitly), it's a bit annoying so I'm gonna stop engaging in this thread.

by seoaeu 4y ago

sascha_sl 4y ago

To be extra fair, the license is modular[1] now and the base version anchors itself mostly on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It it still, obviously, something most lawyers would advise against. That doesn't make the mind game of commercially licensing something dual licensed with this being equal to admitting you reserve the right to be unethical less entertaining. [1]: https://firstdonoharm.dev/version/3/0/license/license.md https://firstdonoharm.dev/version/3/0/license/license.md

josephcsible 4y ago
> licensing something dual licensed with this being equal to admitting you reserve the right to be unethical That's not actually equal, though, because this license prohibits a bunch of things that aren't actually unethical. For example, it prohibits any use by police, military, and basically anyone in Israel.
- sascha_sl 4y ago
  What is unethical is often up to personal interpretation. I can make the case for all the things you listed. This is exactly why all of them are optional modules.
  - seoaeu 4y ago
    I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the vast majority of people do not consider it unethical for a country to enforce its laws or have a military. As for restricting use by Israelis, I'll just point out that the license itself considers it an ethical requirement to treat people equally regardless of their nationality.
    - sascha_sl 4y ago
      >I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the vast majority of people do not consider it unethical for a country to enforce its laws or have a military. Enforcing laws and the current sorry state of the police in the US (and elsewhere to different debrees) are not in a 1:1 relationship. >As for restricting use by Israelis, I'll just point out that the license itself considers it an ethical requirement to treat people equally regardless of their nationality. It doesn't restrict based on nationality. Read the license. It has an optional module to defer to the judgement of BDS. This is much more selective than whatever the US is doing to Cuba within the country but also includes a bunch of international companies that profit of what BDS considers unethical activity. (Not here to judge or assess the validity of the BDS list, but it does correspond to some people's notion of ethics)
      - seoaeu 4y ago
        Who said anything about US police? The license prevents selling to any law enforcement agency in any country
        sascha_sl 4y ago
        It feels like you're taking half my answer and then strawman the remainder (here i mentioned other places quite explicitly), it's a bit annoying so I'm gonna stop engaging in this thread.