> I think we have to consider that the principles of the free software movement, > They are principles that deal in software development and licensing in stric

> I think we have to consider that the principles of the free software movement, > They are principles that deal in software development and licensing in strict isolation, outside of the social context of their use. They are code-centered, not human-centered. That's kinda the point. There is no human-centered alternative to copyright; GPL and the Free Software movement is about weaponizing the only authority licensees seem to respect. > The first is: how easy is open source software to use, anyway? That's like asking how easy Creative Commons software is to use. Is there any common denominator? We're talking about open licenses here; anyone from Joe Blow to Raytheon can use them. A license rarely speaks to the quality of the software provided, especially when it's an open one. > The second, more complicated one, is: I don’t want my software to be used to cause harm. Simple solution: don't publish it. Seriously. If you have overly-conscious work and want to ensure it is never used to harm someone, then don't share it. If your software is particularly useful for killing people, killers and fiends will use it regardless of the license you impose. By sharing it, you make that possible. > They should not have to simply accept that someone could use their work to kill people, commit hate, perpetuate systemic injustices, or otherwise harm. There is nothing good and principled about that idea. Then why publish anything, ever?