On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 7:18 PM Drew DeVault <s...@cmpwn.com> wrote: > > On Fri Mar 6, 2020 at 6:22 PM, Coraline Ada Ehmke wrote: > > There is a strong contingent of people within the ethical source working > > group who agree 100% with this sentiment about licensing not being the > > best strategy. Although it is the most visible of our many initiatives, > > please rest assured that we are exploring a number of options to move > > the agenda forward. > > I can understand this, and I think it's valuable for the ethical source > community to take this experimental approach. However, I don't want to > experiment with open source. It's too important. > > > I completely understand your position, even though I hold out hope that > > it might prove to have a positive impact. But taking a step back, would > > we even be having this conversation if the (admittedly deeply flawed > > first version of the) Hippocratic License had not been released last > > September? Had it not gotten so much press attention? Had it not > > launched dozens of blog posts? > > For what it's worth, my personal exposure to this debate has been: > > 1. I heard minor murmurs throughout the internet about "ethical source" > and researched no further. > 2. Someone mentioned that you were running for the OSI board, and that > it might be bad for open source. I took the opportunity to read your > (and the other candidates) campaign pages on the wiki. > 3. I decided to vote based on this information. > 4. I heard about Eric's thread and the inflammatory discussion that > ensued, and decided to join the discussion and petition for a more > reasonable debate. > > So, I've had very little exposure to any of the conflict you're > referring to. > > > As an aside I also would like to caution you on the use of the term > > “virtue signaling”. I am NOT implying that this applies to you, but > > that term is something of an alt-right “god whistle” in very common > > usage in dark and hateful corners of the internet like 4chan, 8chan, > > some terrible communities on Reddit, and places like Kiwi Farms. It is > > commonly used to dismiss, imply insincerity or hypocrisy, and generally > > ridicule people working in the social justice space. > > > > That being said, taken without the culture baggage, what’s so wrong > > about "virtue signaling" if you think of it as “this person is > > publicly proclaiming a strongly held moral or ethical stance”? Don’t > > people have the right to make such proclamations without having their > > integrity challenged? In fact, shouldn’t we be encouraging that? > > Doesn’t it have inherent value? > > I disavow any relationship with the (ab)users of the term "virtue > signaling" you mention here. Thanks for giving me the benefit of the > doubt, I didn't realize that such a usage of this term exists. > > To clarify my usage, I agree that virtue signaling is not inherently > wrong. What I'm pointing out is that the license text _only_ succeeds > at virtue signalling, and not at any of the ostensibly stated goals. I > don't think it's legally enforcible, and I think it brings a lot of > risks. These ideas are out of scope for software licenses. If you wish > to signal your virtues, and I encourage you to do so, other approaches > would be better. A code of conduct, or even a document which describes > the virtues of the leadership directly, would be more effective. > > I'd rather not dilute the term "open source" with these doubts. Though > these ideas are worth pursuing, I'd prefer to see it in a separate > context from licensing entirely. In the ideal, software can be both open > source *and* ethical source. Right now, the terms are mutually > exclusive. I would prefer to see ethical source tackle these challenges > outside of the framework of software licensing, so that the initiatives > can co-exist in a single software project. > > To your earlier point, licensing is just one way you're looking at > solving the problems ethical source tackles. However, I find open-source > software licensing so important, and this approach so dissonant, that I > cannot overlook it and vote for you on the basis of your other > prospects. > > > Adopting an ethical license, at worst, is a way of stating very clearly > > that you feel an ethical responsibility for the way your software is > > being used. The strong feelings evoked by, for example, Palantir using > > hundreds of open source libraries to help ICE put kids in cages are > > valid, and as you say, developers have very strong reactions to knowing > > that the code they so lovingly crafted and devoted so much of their time > > to is being used in this way. Developers feel helpless. And to date no > > organization that I am aware of has prioritized addressing this feeling > > of helplessness. > > I know that this is hard, and I spoke to this before, but you are not > responsible for how your software is used. ICE is funded by your tax > dollars, too, but good luck not paying those. It's a tough hand we've > been dealt, but ruining open source because we feel empowered to in the > face of our lack of empowerment to effect change in our government... > would be a really bad plan. > > > I disagree on this point, which I see being made quite often (usually > > it’s more along the lines of “terrorists don’t care about > > licenses”. The activities that ICE engages in at its concentration > > camps are illegal but still being carried out by the government, and ICE > > cannot be sued for human rights violations. But to return to the example > > of Palantir: do you think their lawyers are going to even ENTERTAIN the > > notion of using software with an ethical license? Being sued for license > > violation is the least of their concerns. It would be a public relations > > disaster if it was discovered that they were using ethical source > > licensed software to support ICE. > > Let's state for the sake of argument that I agree with this premise. In > that context, let me ask you the following: do you think that if we > prohibit ICE from using our software, they will be any less effective in > carrying out their mission? > > I think we both know that the answer is "no". > > Choosing an ethical source license is not actually solving any of these > problems. It's just making us feel better. I won't accept platitudes at > the expense of the core principles of open source. > > > The OSD does not define open source, it defines the characteristics of > > open source licenses. > > I do not agree with this position, and I find it very important. This > "fact" has been made up by people with ulterior motives in the past few > years, and is being used to justify gas lighting users with > faux-open-source software projects. This statement is made most often by > people who want to capitalize on open-source, but wish the definition > was slightly more suited to their interests. In fact, addressing this > issue is the most important criteria on which I judged my votes for the > new board members. > > I'm prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt, but be aware that, > like I was mistakenly using the "virtue signaling" language of bad > actors, you're using the language of bad actors here yourself. > > > Don’t believe the OSD does much to serve the constituents of the open > > source community, the developers spending their precious free time > > putting all of themselves into code that they hope someone will find > > useful. Maybe the OSI shouldn’t concern itself with developers like > > that? That’s for the organization itself to decide. But I firmly > > believe that business-as-usual will lead to the increasing irrelevance > > of the organization, and I think that would be a tragedy and great loss. > > I think that the OSI would do well to be a focused organization, > concerning itself only with maintaining the OSD, scrutinizing licenses > for compliance with it, and promoting the use of compatible licenses and > software licensed as such. The Unix philosophy: do one thing, and do it > well. > > Rather than expand the mission of the OSI, I'd prefer to establish new > organizations (or support existing ones, they do exist, such as SFC), > for addressing the needs of the developers and improving open source > sustainability. Expanding the budget to support other initiatives is > risky, it introduces a lot of political problems and is itself an > existential threat to open source.
To clarify I think that any license which demands deference to one side of a controversial social or political line over another to never be considered OSI approved. I think that's far more intrusive than restrictions on how a piece of software may be used. > > > So I resent us-vs-them framing, even as I admit my own contribution to > > that antagonism early on. I’m hoping that we can move past adversity > > and come together to create the next great hack that ensures, in the > > words of Karen Sandler, that software freedom is ALWAYS in service to > > human freedom. > > Thanks for taking the time to address my concerns. > > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@lists.opensource.org > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
