
Bruce Perens: Invasion of the Ethical Licenses (2019) - kick
https://perens.com/2019/10/12/invasion-of-the-ethical-licenses/
======
weinzierl
_The Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG)_ (and their _" Social Contract"
with the Free Software Community_ for that matter) [1] are very short
documents, and I recommend anyone reading them. Created in 1997, and only
slightly changed once in 2004, they are a staple of free and open source
software.

[1]
[https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines](https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines)

~~~
est31
IIRC the OSI criteria were even modeled after the DFSG. OSI was basically a
project to decide which license is open source outside of a Debian context.

~~~
kick
Perens wrote both, so yeah, though OSI was just to make free software more
corporate-friendly.

------
Latty
I doubt anyone using these kinds of licenses really thinks they are going to
"work" from the point of view of significantly limiting that behaviour.

They do, however, act as a way to advertise the issues—this article being an
example of how using a license like that causes people to publicise and maybe
think about your issues.

The final suggestion in the article is working to enact better laws: starting
and maintaining the conversation is the first step to doing that.

~~~
uncle_j
> I doubt anyone using these kinds of licenses really thinks they are going to
> "work" from the point of view of significantly limiting that behaviour.

Which is the exact problem with it. I don't particularly like the term but it
is essentially a virtue signal i.e. I am telling you to care about this
because I am a _good_ person.

It is a form of slacktivism
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slacktivism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slacktivism)).

> They do, however, act as a way to advertise the issues—this article being an
> example of how using a license like that causes people to publicise and
> maybe think about your issues.

In my experience I find that it actually accomplishes the opposite. For many
people there is enough politics in everyday life whether this is internal
company politics, their local community or the maelstrom of national and
international politics. People become burned out by it and then tend to resent
it.

~~~
damnyou
While you may or may not care about politics, if you are a member of certain
groups politics cares about you. That is the unfortunate reality of the world
we live in.

However, I agree with Perens that licenses are the wrong vehicle for change.

~~~
uncle_j
Yes that maybe true. However if you bludgeon people constantly with activism
(which is clearly the case here) people will end up despising it.

~~~
jki275
And the other unfortunate problem is that leads to people despising the
activist as well.

------
nabla9
These typical naive tv-plot contracts: You write outrageous terms into a
contract form and it becomes a binding under the law is both parties agree.

It seems that some people are so naive that they really think this is how the
contract law works.

------
Dotnaught
On a related note, Perens resigned from the OSI last week over concerns about
the Cryptographic Autonomy License:
[https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/01/03/osi_cofounder_resig...](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/01/03/osi_cofounder_resigns/)

~~~
dang
Discussed here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21958105](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21958105)

------
mark_l_watson
I agree with Bruce, these licenses may be the results of good intentions but
they are probably unenforceable, and if I may add: they are silly.

------
Quequau
Back in the '90s we got a dev kit for a microcontroller (Toshiba if I recall)
that had language in the license that specifically forbade using the thing in
terrorist acts.

So I don't think this is new.

~~~
gus_massa
Most closed source licenses have restrictions, like " _don 't use this in a
nuclear plant, or to control an airplane, ..._". They have also restriction
for countries and/or organizations _the_ government doesn't like. It's fine
because they are closed source. They can add any restriction they like, for
example " _don 't use this on Monday_", except when the restriction affect a
protected class or the equivalent concept in other countries, like race or
religion, or when the restriction can cause a tweetstorm.

The problem is that these ethical licenses try to pass as open source
licenses. For example the title in the page of the Hippocratic license is "
_An Ethical License for Open Source Projects_ ". With these licenses the
project is not "free software" or "open source software", it's just "source
code available software".

~~~
belorn
The licenses clearly do not pass the free software definition or the open
source definition, but I don't think that is what the author is arguing. Their
point is that the license is not legal and enforceable.

------
saagarjha
Plus I’ve heard that these make this difficult to use by “legitimate” entities
too since they’re non-standard and hence require more legal scrutiny.

~~~
fhars
Yes, the canonical example is the good old „I give permission for IBM to use
JSLint for evil“:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5138866](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5138866)

~~~
hoistbypetard
Which has since gone away but can be found here:

[http://web.archive.org/web/20110418031915/http://dev.hasenj....](http://web.archive.org/web/20110418031915/http://dev.hasenj.org/post/3272592502/ibm-
and-its-minions)

------
est31
FLOSS is a very good cause and it attracts people with an open heart who do
care about good causes. However, the goal of FLOSS is not to be a guardian of
how people should live, nor should it be a judge or a police to prevent or
sanction the evil in this world. There are different and better venues for
this!

If I see a project adopt such a license then for me it's a sign of immaturity
and not being able to manage the power that being a maintainer brings. I'd
definitely try to avoid such software as it doesn't fulfil the four freedoms
and thus isn't FLOSS.

------
redavni
These things are resume filler for people looking for jobs in the non-profit
sector.

------
Proven
> The idea behind this was that Freedom meant Freedom for everyone, not just
> Freedom for people we approved of.

It's not freedom for everyone. It cannot be used by those who do not accept
the license. If they do accept it, it limits their rights to use, modify and
redistribute the software within limits spelled out in the license.

"You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it.
However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the
Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do
not accept this License"

Most people here refuse to understand that "freedom" can't be given by a
license. It can stay the same, or become restricted (when a license imposes a
duty or obligation on the licensee).

The ethical licenses are a nonsense. Even the name is awful (how is it ethical
to attempt to restrict another person's freedom?) Thankfully no project that I
know or care about uses one of those.

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
> how is it ethical to attempt to restrict another person's freedom?

By preventing greater harm to others that would result if you didn't.
Seriously, that wasn't obvious?

------
belorn
With all due respect to the author, I don't follow the logic of many of the
claims in the article.

> However, consider enforcing the Vaccine License: imagine explaining to a
> judge that someone consented to be injected with vaccine by using a piece of
> software, and that they become copyright infringers by failing to get their
> shots.

Lets imagine a too small child illegally entering a amusement park ride that
has a minimum height requirement, and an accident happens. The park owner do
not need to explain to a judge how the child agreed to inject growth hormones
by entering the ride. The requirement does not specify the way of how an
individual may achieve compliance, only the measurable state which compliance
may be determined.

The Vaccine License is no more complicated than licenses that specific that
you can't ship software to countries which the US has an export ban in regard
to encryption. The export ban specific a target demographic which the software
can not be sold and/or use it. The Vaccine License specific a target
demographic which may not copy it, and/or use it.

The second argument brought up is that you can't sue a citizen of sovereign
countries for behavior that their governments do. Again we can look at US
export bans. you don't need to enforce the condition by suing people in those
countries. It is generally enough that international companies has to follow
the condition.

The third argument is that since none of these licenses routinely require any
royalties, the likely damages by infringers would be zero. That is not how
damages get calculated. Existing royalties can be used as a guideline, but the
common argument is to claim damages based on "industry standard". If a
infringer publish unreleased work (say a copyrighted movie before release) it
also has no existing royalties, but that hasn't stopped judges from issuing
rather high damages. Context matter in court cases.

The forth argument being that the term was illegal, improper or unenforceable.
As someone who has been standing on that side of the fence in regard to EULAs
and privacy policies I sincerely wish it was so.

That basically leaves the last argument that enforcing licenses are too
costly. I fully agree. Its like shoplifting which has less than 1% clearing
rate. A lot of shop owners where I live have stopped even reporting thefts
because they find the time doing the phone call is most costly than its worth.
This is one place where personal principles has to weight more than financial
sense. If someone steal your stuff, be that in a shop or a copyright, then you
file a police report. It will likely not result in anything but it is better
than nothing.

------
pessimizer
The GPL is also an ethical license, and a lot of us buy into it. A lot of us
might buy into some future, different license, and the resources for
enforcement will come from the people who support it.

It's only the OSI license that's some kind of libertarian commons thing. The
GPL comes with obligations, and people are free to avoid the GPL for that
reason, or simply violate it and deal with any consequences of that. All of
these arguments apply as much to the GPL as to hypothetical "don't eat meat"
or "don't steal jokes" licenses.

~~~
ThrowawayR2
> " _The GPL comes with obligations_ "

The GPL does not impose any obligations unless the user attempts to
redistribute the work that is GPLed, which most users don't. The text even
freely acknowledges that the user is not even required to accept the terms of
the GPL (" _5\. You are not required to accept this License, since you have
not signed it. ..._ ")

~~~
shadowgovt
And the Vaccine License does not impose any limitations unless users attempt
to use the software without having vaccinations. I think the details of what
limitations the licenses impose is splitting hairs; the point is they impose
limitations.

~~~
cycloptic
It really is not. The only reason the GPL has any conditions at all is to
preserve the original terms of the license past the first distribution. The
conditions don't trigger on use of the software, they trigger upon copying.
That is what is meant by "copyleft". Compare this to the vaccine license that
apparently demands users purchase medical treatments (???) from an unrelated
third party before they can even use the software at all.

------
msla
The only possible purpose of these licenses is to act as Super Codes of
Conduct, CoCs which can "kick out" people who aren't in the project by making
it too difficult for them to keep using the software when one of the
contributors could pull the trigger on legal action. The action doesn't have
to be successful to be expensive to fight, after all; it's the old troll
tactic of making the danegeld less expensive than the battle would be.

Poof. Now anyone you don't like can't even use the software, let alone fork it
and go their own direction with it. Ballmer could hardly have done it better.

~~~
matheusmoreira
They can just ignore the license if they want/need the software that much.
Seriously doubt random users are gonna get sued for violating terms.

~~~
msla
> They can just ignore the license if they want/need the software that much.
> Seriously doubt random users are gonna get sued for violating terms.

By all means tap-dance in the minefield. You'll probably be fine.

Arbitrary enforcement is the cornerstone of a good, solid chilling effect.

Finally, as a point of policy, I'd rather people not get the idea that OSS
licenses are ignorable. That's even more Ballmer-esque in its implications.

