5 ms·

That my work may be used for highly unethical purposes such as waging war is one reason that makes me think twice before releasing software.

by gnosis 14y ago

car54whereareu 14y ago
If your software works people will use it for something ethical or something unethical. If it works well unethical people will use it and ethical people won't touch it, because it isn't approved by the establishment of ethical people, it isn't the status quo etc. This really happened with nginx. A group of people in 2003 or so wouldn't use nginx because youporn used it.
dmix 14y ago
What about TOR? It's used for war and child porn but it also has a thousand other use-cases where it's helping fight repression and supports free speech, privacy, etc.
acabal 14y ago
I think about this sometimes, and I think it ultimately comes down to how society acts as a whole, which is mostly out of our direct control. Society can use any tool for good or evil; just as a knife can cut bread or hurt a person, so too can Apache serve Wikipedia or serve the MPAA/RIAA's intranet. There's definitely a cutoff point (if you're designing a nuclear-tipped rocket, there's usually just one reason for that) but stressing about whether or not the general-purpose software we create will be used for evil will only frustrate the cause of good.
- csense 14y ago
  > a nuclear-tipped rocket What if your nuclear arms are never meant to actually be used, but the implicit threat of having that capability will keep your country from being bullied by other countries? Not even nuclear weapons are entirely black-and-white.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    A nuclear tipped rocket is indeed not a great example. On the other hand, say you had someone with a passion for rocketry and space, who found that the best way to pursue their dreams at the time was to build conventional bomb tipped rockets with slave labor... Still not exactly black and white, but a good deal less fuzzy I think.
  - jackpirate 14y ago
    Frankly, I find that about as black as black gets. Playing chicken with the future of the whole world in order to gain a little bit of negotiating leverage? Pure evil.
    - afarrell 14y ago
      You seem to imply that "a little bit of negotiating leverage" is of trivial consequence rather than a question of how many people were at the mercy of a corrupt and perversely-incentivized bureaucrat or an abusive factory owner. We didn't fight the cold war over which side you butter your bread on.
      - jackpirate 14y ago
        a question of how many people were at the mercy of a corrupt and perversely-incentivized bureaucrat or an abusive factory owner I can't tell if you're complaining about the USSR or the USA... Joking aside, I know the reasons the west fought the cold war, and I don't think they were justified.
    - lolcraft 14y ago
      Playing chicken with the world in order to prevent another conventional war between two superpowers... justified. Otherwise, a hardline faction in any government could have easily pushed for it. Not the mainstream political force in the USA, most probably. (Though, who really knows, looking at Vietnam.) Also, my understanding is that the USSR was in an echo chamber that led it to believe capitalist USA would collapse on itself (hence the "we will bury you" line), so probably they wouldn't have attacked neither. Though the USSR had clearly the edge in a ground war, and I'm sure plenty fanatics could have been found. So there was still that possibility. Of course, the perfect solution would be a perfectly-balanced economic/political federation of countries, policed by a neutral organization. That couldn't happen then, and that won't happen in the future. Neither Western countries, nor China+Russia, nor specially Arabic countries, will submit to a UN decision that violates their core political tenets, be it justified or not.
sliverstorm 14y ago
Way to make sweeping statements. Waging war is always highly unethical?
vor_ 14y ago
I wouldn't be able to view it so black-and-white. For example, what about waging war for independence against a tyrant or waging a war to prevent genocide? What is considered highly unethical is also highly subjective.
- peterwwillis 14y ago
  Nit-picking: Wars are not waged to prevent genocide. Countries are left alone to kill their own people, and afterward we may punish the perpetrators, but no action is ever taken before or during a genocide. Also, waging a war for independence is typically called an "insurgency" or "terrorism", sometimes with a more heroic title such as "revolution" or "uprising". What's not subjective is that war is (almost) always fought for the wrong reasons. As far as ethics, "Just War" is pretty ridiculous; that the highest officials in power think it's a good idea to murder people, but only in specific ways, is just a joke.
  - jacques_chester 14y ago
    Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason. John Harrington.
  - vor_ 14y ago
    > What's not subjective is that war is (almost) always fought for the wrong reasons. But that is subjective.
javert 14y ago
You could add a clause that states that your software can't be used for certain purposes. That might not stop its use in some cases, but large corporations that supply the military would likely think twice. That said, in (almost) whatever country you're in, there are people out there putting their lives at risk to defend your freedom. Sometimes they probably end up bullying people for no good reason (perhaps even over the course of years) and engaging in self-sacrificial operations, but that's not their _only_ function.
- jacques_chester 14y ago
  > You could add a clause that states that your software can't be used for certain purposes. At which point it ceases to be considered "open source" software under the usual definitions. So you might as well just leave it closed source and refuse to sell licences to people you don't like.
  - javert 14y ago
    That's giving up an awful lot just for the sake of meeting a definition.
    - jacques_chester 14y ago
      Well apart from the definitions, you give up a lot of practical stuff that goes along with it. For example, if your software doesn't meet the Debian Free Software Guidelines, then it won't be packaged in the main repos. And that has downstream impact on other distributions such as Ubuntu.
    - mpyne 14y ago
      Not just "a definition", it's labeled Freedom Zero. The ability to run the program, for any purpose. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://opensource.org/docs/osd#fields-of-endeavor http://opensource.org/docs/osd#fields-of-endeavor (The OSI's open source definition is derived from Debian's Free Software Guidelines, which includes the same prohibition against licenses banning fields of endeavor).
rsl7 14y ago
I can understand not wanting to be involved. but unless you're building something designed for war or violence, you are not participating.

That my work may be used for highly unethical purposes such as waging war is one reason that makes me think twice before releasing software.

by gnosis 14y ago

That my work may be used for highly unethical purposes such as waging war is one reason that makes me think twice before releasing software.

car54whereareu 14y ago

If your software works people will use it for something ethical or something unethical. If it works well unethical people will use it and ethical people won't touch it, because it isn't approved by the establishment of ethical people, it isn't the status quo etc. This really happened with nginx. A group of people in 2003 or so wouldn't use nginx because youporn used it.

dmix 14y ago

What about TOR? It's used for war and child porn but it also has a thousand other use-cases where it's helping fight repression and supports free speech, privacy, etc.

acabal 14y ago

I think about this sometimes, and I think it ultimately comes down to how society acts as a whole, which is mostly out of our direct control. Society can use any tool for good or evil; just as a knife can cut bread or hurt a person, so too can Apache serve Wikipedia or serve the MPAA/RIAA's intranet. There's definitely a cutoff point (if you're designing a nuclear-tipped rocket, there's usually just one reason for that) but stressing about whether or not the general-purpose software we create will be used for evil will only frustrate the cause of good.

csense 14y ago
> a nuclear-tipped rocket What if your nuclear arms are never meant to actually be used, but the implicit threat of having that capability will keep your country from being bullied by other countries? Not even nuclear weapons are entirely black-and-white.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  A nuclear tipped rocket is indeed not a great example. On the other hand, say you had someone with a passion for rocketry and space, who found that the best way to pursue their dreams at the time was to build conventional bomb tipped rockets with slave labor... Still not exactly black and white, but a good deal less fuzzy I think.
- jackpirate 14y ago
  Frankly, I find that about as black as black gets. Playing chicken with the future of the whole world in order to gain a little bit of negotiating leverage? Pure evil.
  - afarrell 14y ago
    You seem to imply that "a little bit of negotiating leverage" is of trivial consequence rather than a question of how many people were at the mercy of a corrupt and perversely-incentivized bureaucrat or an abusive factory owner. We didn't fight the cold war over which side you butter your bread on.
    - jackpirate 14y ago
      a question of how many people were at the mercy of a corrupt and perversely-incentivized bureaucrat or an abusive factory owner I can't tell if you're complaining about the USSR or the USA... Joking aside, I know the reasons the west fought the cold war, and I don't think they were justified.
  - lolcraft 14y ago
    Playing chicken with the world in order to prevent another conventional war between two superpowers... justified. Otherwise, a hardline faction in any government could have easily pushed for it. Not the mainstream political force in the USA, most probably. (Though, who really knows, looking at Vietnam.) Also, my understanding is that the USSR was in an echo chamber that led it to believe capitalist USA would collapse on itself (hence the "we will bury you" line), so probably they wouldn't have attacked neither. Though the USSR had clearly the edge in a ground war, and I'm sure plenty fanatics could have been found. So there was still that possibility. Of course, the perfect solution would be a perfectly-balanced economic/political federation of countries, policed by a neutral organization. That couldn't happen then, and that won't happen in the future. Neither Western countries, nor China+Russia, nor specially Arabic countries, will submit to a UN decision that violates their core political tenets, be it justified or not.

sliverstorm 14y ago

Way to make sweeping statements. Waging war is always highly unethical?

vor_ 14y ago

I wouldn't be able to view it so black-and-white. For example, what about waging war for independence against a tyrant or waging a war to prevent genocide? What is considered highly unethical is also highly subjective.

peterwwillis 14y ago
Nit-picking: Wars are not waged to prevent genocide. Countries are left alone to kill their own people, and afterward we may punish the perpetrators, but no action is ever taken before or during a genocide. Also, waging a war for independence is typically called an "insurgency" or "terrorism", sometimes with a more heroic title such as "revolution" or "uprising". What's not subjective is that war is (almost) always fought for the wrong reasons. As far as ethics, "Just War" is pretty ridiculous; that the highest officials in power think it's a good idea to murder people, but only in specific ways, is just a joke.
- jacques_chester 14y ago
  Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason. John Harrington.
- vor_ 14y ago
  > What's not subjective is that war is (almost) always fought for the wrong reasons. But that is subjective.

javert 14y ago

You could add a clause that states that your software can't be used for certain purposes. That might not stop its use in some cases, but large corporations that supply the military would likely think twice. That said, in (almost) whatever country you're in, there are people out there putting their lives at risk to defend your freedom. Sometimes they probably end up bullying people for no good reason (perhaps even over the course of years) and engaging in self-sacrificial operations, but that's not their _only_ function.

jacques_chester 14y ago
> You could add a clause that states that your software can't be used for certain purposes. At which point it ceases to be considered "open source" software under the usual definitions. So you might as well just leave it closed source and refuse to sell licences to people you don't like.
- javert 14y ago
  That's giving up an awful lot just for the sake of meeting a definition.
  - jacques_chester 14y ago
    Well apart from the definitions, you give up a lot of practical stuff that goes along with it. For example, if your software doesn't meet the Debian Free Software Guidelines, then it won't be packaged in the main repos. And that has downstream impact on other distributions such as Ubuntu.
  - mpyne 14y ago
    Not just "a definition", it's labeled Freedom Zero. The ability to run the program, for any purpose. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://opensource.org/docs/osd#fields-of-endeavor http://opensource.org/docs/osd#fields-of-endeavor (The OSI's open source definition is derived from Debian's Free Software Guidelines, which includes the same prohibition against licenses banning fields of endeavor).

rsl7 14y ago

I can understand not wanting to be involved. but unless you're building something designed for war or violence, you are not participating.