
The Culture War in Open Source Is On - traverseda
https://modelviewculture.com/pieces/the-culture-war-in-open-source-is-on
======
gray_-_wolf
Fairly intersting viewpoint, although disagree with the author (if I interpret
the post correctly, English is not my native language). Just ignoring any
"ethical" view point (because they are subjective and hard to agree on) and
looking just at the practicality of the idea:

> the danger is a mess of unenforceable licenses whose prohibitions become
> impossible to keep track of

This is imho the most important part; once you start using basically personal
license (I mean, each developer (person) has different set of values; some
would be fine with military applications, some not; some would be fine with
non-profit (doctors without borders) using their code, some would not), it
becomes basically impossible to be sure your code is compliant or not.

Once you realize that your would need to basically evaluate every single
license in the dependency tree in depth (since they are basically non-
standard, personal licenses at this point), it turns into insane amount of
work. And expensive, since it would probably needed to be done by a lawyer.

The split between gpl2, gpl3 and apache 1.0 and 2.0 is bad enough already.

------
benjaminjosephw
Contextually, it makes sense that licencing used to be such a big deal in the
history of software distribution. Back in the 70s and 80s there was the real
possibility that that FOSS could win and software freedoms could be embedded
in the expected legal structure of software distribution. That didn't pan out
though. Maybe it _is_ time we move beyond licensing being the focal point of
software movements.

The context has changed significantly since the start of the FOSS movement.
This new generation of tech enthusiasts aren't trying to build the foundations
of an operating system. Increasingly, ethical open source looks like building
applications, tools and even platforms that defend _end-user_ freedoms. This
shift in emphases is something newer software movements should embrace.

Maybe ethical open source movements should focus more on what the technology
enables for end-users rather than on how the project itself is structured or
which licence is used.

~~~
ericgj
I couldn't agree more. Well said!

The [Ethical Open Source definition][1] does include three general points on
behalf of the end user: accessibility, safety, and privacy. But it does not
address the relationship between developers and end users: how do those who
will use the software have a voice in what gets developed? And how could it -
as you say, it's time to move past licensing as the sole focal point.

[1]:
[https://ethicalsource.dev/definition/](https://ethicalsource.dev/definition/)

~~~
gray_-_wolf
> how do those who will use the software have a voice in what gets developed

Should they? If they want some feature, they can ask nicely or make a PR. Are
there other options?

------
traverseda
Submitted with the hope that it can be discussed without too much vitriol,
although honestly I'm not expecting it to last very long.

We don't get a lot of content from the viewpoint proponents of things like the
"ethical source license" (A license that explicitly prevents groups like ICE
from using the code). I don't think this article was written with the
intention of being divisive, and I'd hope it could offer some insight into the
mind-set of that particular sub-culture.

~~~
leethargo
Restricting the use would mean that it's not classified as open-source as per
[1] "6\. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor", right?

Would that also mean that software released with such restrictions would
likely be incompatible with most existing OSS licenses, making it impractical
to build on top of existing code?

[1] [https://opensource.org/docs/osd](https://opensource.org/docs/osd)

~~~
josephcsible
Yes to both, and doing so also makes it non-free per the FSF. Here's what they
say about the Anti-996 license [1], as well as about this concept in general
[2].

Caveat to the second point: while it is indeed incompatible with copyleft
licenses like the GPL, pushover licenses like the MIT license unfortunately
are compatible with it, so there probably will be some degree of proliferation
of that sort of thing.

[1] [https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-
list.en.html#Anti-996](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-
list.en.html#Anti-996)

[2] [https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-
freed...](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-
run.html)

------
froasty
>Richard Stallman, originator of the first free-and-open license, resigned
from the Free Software Foundation last year over comments sympathetic to the
late billionaire and molester Jeffrey Epstein.

This is patently false character assassination. This should read instead
"Richard Stallman, known high-functioning autist with a broken, abusive
childhood, defends Marvin Minsky, the only father figure he's ever had, from
posthumous accusations of rape and pedophilia on semi-private mailing list. He
was then forced to resign and made homeless after lifelong struggle for
freedom and justice at the expense of everything else in his life." But that's
certainly not a news story--that's just a tragic inquisition and miscarriage
of justice.

I'm sure a bunch of blue herrings (i.e. rabid twitter users) will show up and
respond with one or more variation of the following (but with zero facts):

"As a woman in tech, I feel personally threatened by the fact that creepy
Stallman is alive and walking around freely, creepily. He should have a muzzle
put on him and be defenestrated off the Cliffs of Dover. Otherwise we're still
alienating potential contributors."

"Stallman is not the squeaky-clean corporate skinsuit we needed to further our
sociopathic power grabs. Even if he was innocent (which he wasn't, he's
literally Hitler), he should have been removed years before because he's not
the right fit for the position of bootlicking for FAANG and champagne
socialists."

"Do you even know how society works? Stallman _is_ _the_ _problem_. He is
_literally_ the _personification_ of _everything_ that is _wrong_ with men and
software. Period. How _anyone_ can believe that his behavior is acceptable in
2020 is _beyond_ me. You _literally_ _need_ to _see_ a _therapist_. This Karl
Popper quote taken out of context means I don't have to introspect about
stomping on your face. #stallmanisliterallyhitler"

Or, they'll just downvote this comment silently, which shows that they've read
this comment, know it's true, and want the public to know that they
acknowledge that, but >:(

------
Traster
I find it really difficult to even engage with the issues on this when there's
such a toxic conversation around. I literally don't care what the ideological
concerns are, if you're going around throwing out accusations and calling
people "Marxists" I just don't have the motivation to hear your points.

