
An Ethical License for Open Source Projects - yvonnick
https://firstdonoharm.dev/
======
mieseratte
> Consider the GPS software that tells you how to get to a restaurant; it’s
> also used to direct military drones to their targets.

> You can’t build systems that can be weaponized against marginalized people
> and take no responsibility for them.

Perhaps they should use a different example. GPS was developed for the
military, then made available to the public sector. Sounds like this license
is meant for folks who don't want their open-source used by the icky
governments.

Whether a militant regime will give a damn about your licensing is another
matter.

Regardless, this is an interesting question: how far does culpability go? If
you murder someone you're culpable, if you assist that murderer you're
culpable, if you assist the person who assisted the murder... how far removed
do we go? The getaway car salesman? The man who does his taxes?

------
murgindrag
This is a legal nightmare. Whether you agree with the goals or not, this is
just about the worst-written license I've ever seen.

In legal terms, you want to avoid ambiguity. Otherwise, you have litigation
(which the party with the deepest pockets wins). This license has incredible
ambiguity.

A (non-legally binding) declaration is fine with ambiguity -- it's even
desired. It's a starting point for a conversation and interpretation. That's
not true for a license or a contract.

Lawyers often do leave ambiguity, but that's usually when the ambiguity is
removed otherwise (e.g. by law). This is just an incompetent mess.

------
shagie
This is not an open source license and completely incompatible with many
licenses and projects.

Any existing project attempting to transition to such would get forked. New
projects using it will get ignored.

This license is worse than WTFPL or the Json license (note the legal hassles
that IBM had to go trough to use it). If that’s what the author wants... um...
ok. But I can’t use any software using that license in personal or work
projects for compatibility or fear of litigation.

------
fipar
With all due respect, this seems nice in theory but useless in practice.

Would you expect an entity (government, corporation, doesn't matter) who does
not mind exploiting or torturing people (only as two examples) to worry about
using software outside of what its license allows?. I can't be the only one
who thinks this is naive. If you write open source software, you should assume
anybody will use it for whatever needs they have that your software suits,
regardless of the license.

I think there's enough Activism Lite on the world these days. If you don't
like some of the awful things that are going on in the world, a license (or a
twitter protest, etc) is not the way to go. It's not like The Internet
suddenly made it impossible for people to do things like vote, or go protest.
You know, real-life things that may have real-life impact on some of the
awfulness in the world.

------
alanfranz
Mh. I doubt this could work.

First, it is unclear if the Declaration is "the way to go", i.e. if its
violation is the only way of violating the license (how do I interpret the
commas, the verbs, the and/or in the 2nd bulleted point)?

Second, the scope is too broad. Any software (or business!) will harm somebody
or some group. Are you creating a new software for making underdeveloped
countries better? You're threatening the well-being of employers relying on
cheap labor!

We shouldn't bind our software to ethics more than what we do with other
things. We don't stop selling food because criminals could eat it; should we?

------
papermachete
Ethical proprietary license is an oxymoron. This is nothing more than a waiver
of responsibility to make a product not only worth using but to encourage its
use. This crippling license can only serve to rig the market competition.
Imagine if the FSF could suddenly ban all routers from running GPL software,
to promote its own line of approved LAN and WiFi cards.

Speaking of FSF, how uncanny is it this license released so quickly after Dr.
Richard Stallman's resignation? If nothing more, to catapult the walls when
the gate is already lowered.

Let's cut to the chase: How will you prove an allegedly amoral actor is
utilising your code when you have no access to the codebase? So banning top
secret government projects is an unrealistic pursuit, which leaves only one
part of the 'open source' community to destabilise another part, or to make
crooked the already fading concept of software freedom.

When can we expect Coraline to nominate xirself(/herself/himself) as the new
ethical leader of 'open source' software, and in term the FSF?

------
shurcooL
There was what I thought an insightful twitter thread on this license at
[https://twitter.com/chimeracoder/status/1175896685505056769?...](https://twitter.com/chimeracoder/status/1175896685505056769?s=20).

------
dchest
See also Crockford's "no evil" license:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=764024](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=764024)

------
thrower123
This is going to get rammed through a bunch of projects that are either
sympathetic or apathetic, the same way all this code of conduct business
infiltrated through everything.

------
gus_massa
Can I use the software to kill Hitler?

Can an anti-vaccer developer sue a vaccine production company? What about use
in vaccine research?

What about a hospital with a clear pro-fife/pro-choice policy? Can the other
half of the developer sue them?

Can I use the software to run a 5G network? [I think they are safe.]

In a Juul factory? [There are some interesting cases reports.]

Can I use it in a coal mine? A nuclear plant? A solar panel installation
company?

------
sam_lowry_
Who are going to judge on ethicity?

------
lidHanteyk
Why this and not something like WTFPL that is more honest about the nature of
code as mere data?

