9 ms·

Here's a (not-recommended but amusing) nuclear option: Tit-for-tat. Regulators and artists don't want this? Okay, include in all open source software licenses

Here's a (not-recommended but amusing) nuclear option: Tit-for-tat. Regulators and artists don't want this? Okay, include in all open source software licenses that regulators and artists are now barred from using them without payment.

beojan 4y ago
A lot of open source software authors don't want this either because it can circumvent copyleft and attribution requirements. Also, discriminating like you suggest would make those licenses closed source by definition.
- green_on_black 4y ago
  I'm glad you're responding with real issues, though let me reiterate that my comment was more to amuse and vent. Long live clopen source!
- amelius 4y ago
  > Also, discriminating like you suggest would make those licenses closed source by definition. Definitions are not what matters in the end. Why doesn't the viral and restrictive element of GNU's GPL license make the license "non-open"?
  - beojan 4y ago
    Definitions are what matter, they're the reason you can use words and I can understand what you mean by them. "Open source" has a definition (https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd) and the GPL meets it, because it doesn't prevent derived worries from being distributed under the same license.
- wnkrshm 4y ago
  Interestingly it's the same with attribution requirements for art, but since it's not written words, nobody can claim: "this part is exactly my GPL code". But with art it's "this is exactly how I do texture on metal", "this is exactly how I paint steampunk greeble", "this is how I do clouds" etc.
Kerrick 4y ago
That would be neither an open source license (according to the OSI) nor a free license (according to the FSF). https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html > [...] is a nonfree license because it extends the four freedoms only to some kinds of organizations, not to all. Such a restriction in a software license, in the name of any cause whatsoever, imposes too much power over users. Please don't use this license, and we urge you to avoid any software that has been released under it. https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated > 1. Free Redistribution > The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. > Rationale: By constraining the license to require free redistribution, we eliminate the temptation for licensors to throw away many long-term gains to make short-term gains. If we didn't do this, there would be lots of pressure for cooperators to defect.
- starwatch 4y ago
  Slight tangent, but you seem to know about licences... Do you happen to know of a licence that has anything like a "can only be used for the benefit of humanity" clause? I've favoured the MIT licence for what little OSS I've published thus far. But, I'm becoming increasingly concerned that ruthless profit-above-all-else driven companies can include my (benign) work in systems that causes real harm.
  - chrismorgan 4y ago
    That’s far too subjective to be of any legal value. If you want that, you’ll need to (a) spell out what you want to allow, (b) spell out what you want to disallow, or (c) just write the subjective thing out plain and simple and don’t even bother with complying with license norms (e.g. just write “you can do whatever you want with this provided it is for the benefit of humanity”).
    - starwatch 4y ago
      That's a fair criticism. My idea of good is not defined, or static - it adapts over time to the norms and values of society. Perhaps something like the OpenAI approach to their GPT-3 deal with Microsoft is better. That is, if the work Microsoft do with GPT-3 goes in a direction OpenAI doesn't like, OpenAI reserves the right to veto the work [1]. [1]: https://www.ted.com/talks/the_ted_interview_the_race_to_build_ai_that_benefits_humanity_with_sam_altman https://www.ted.com/talks/the_ted_interview_the_race_to_buil...
manholio 4y ago
What a wonderful excuse for a government to pay another 1 billion dollars on crapware to their cronies, who will outsource it to some incompetent software sweatshop on the other side of the world. We can barely get governments to use open source even today, without restrictions. Hell, we can barely make them manage source code for commercial products they commission and pay for. I've walked into govt shops that were 100% binary dependent to the original software author, which never delivered source code and charged them trough the nose for the basic servicing. Like it or not, the government and regulators represent us, we need individual accountability but harming the govt. directly harms ourselves firstly. The bureaucrats and the corrupt hardly care.

beojan 4y ago

A lot of open source software authors don't want this either because it can circumvent copyleft and attribution requirements. Also, discriminating like you suggest would make those licenses closed source by definition.

green_on_black 4y ago
I'm glad you're responding with real issues, though let me reiterate that my comment was more to amuse and vent. Long live clopen source!
amelius 4y ago
> Also, discriminating like you suggest would make those licenses closed source by definition. Definitions are not what matters in the end. Why doesn't the viral and restrictive element of GNU's GPL license make the license "non-open"?
- beojan 4y ago
  Definitions are what matter, they're the reason you can use words and I can understand what you mean by them. "Open source" has a definition (https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd) and the GPL meets it, because it doesn't prevent derived worries from being distributed under the same license.
wnkrshm 4y ago
Interestingly it's the same with attribution requirements for art, but since it's not written words, nobody can claim: "this part is exactly my GPL code". But with art it's "this is exactly how I do texture on metal", "this is exactly how I paint steampunk greeble", "this is how I do clouds" etc.

Kerrick 4y ago

That would be neither an open source license (according to the OSI) nor a free license (according to the FSF). https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html > [...] is a nonfree license because it extends the four freedoms only to some kinds of organizations, not to all. Such a restriction in a software license, in the name of any cause whatsoever, imposes too much power over users. Please don't use this license, and we urge you to avoid any software that has been released under it. https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated > 1. Free Redistribution > The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. > Rationale: By constraining the license to require free redistribution, we eliminate the temptation for licensors to throw away many long-term gains to make short-term gains. If we didn't do this, there would be lots of pressure for cooperators to defect.

starwatch 4y ago
Slight tangent, but you seem to know about licences... Do you happen to know of a licence that has anything like a "can only be used for the benefit of humanity" clause? I've favoured the MIT licence for what little OSS I've published thus far. But, I'm becoming increasingly concerned that ruthless profit-above-all-else driven companies can include my (benign) work in systems that causes real harm.
- chrismorgan 4y ago
  That’s far too subjective to be of any legal value. If you want that, you’ll need to (a) spell out what you want to allow, (b) spell out what you want to disallow, or (c) just write the subjective thing out plain and simple and don’t even bother with complying with license norms (e.g. just write “you can do whatever you want with this provided it is for the benefit of humanity”).
  - starwatch 4y ago
    That's a fair criticism. My idea of good is not defined, or static - it adapts over time to the norms and values of society. Perhaps something like the OpenAI approach to their GPT-3 deal with Microsoft is better. That is, if the work Microsoft do with GPT-3 goes in a direction OpenAI doesn't like, OpenAI reserves the right to veto the work [1]. [1]: https://www.ted.com/talks/the_ted_interview_the_race_to_build_ai_that_benefits_humanity_with_sam_altman https://www.ted.com/talks/the_ted_interview_the_race_to_buil...

manholio 4y ago

What a wonderful excuse for a government to pay another 1 billion dollars on crapware to their cronies, who will outsource it to some incompetent software sweatshop on the other side of the world. We can barely get governments to use open source even today, without restrictions. Hell, we can barely make them manage source code for commercial products they commission and pay for. I've walked into govt shops that were 100% binary dependent to the original software author, which never delivered source code and charged them trough the nose for the basic servicing. Like it or not, the government and regulators represent us, we need individual accountability but harming the govt. directly harms ourselves firstly. The bureaucrats and the corrupt hardly care.