Odd, I sent this yesterday and it never seemed to appear.
> On Mar 9, 2020, at 10:02 AM, Nigel T <nigel.2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > That’s a distinction without a difference since the licensor gets to decide > what is or isn’t a human rights violation. So your own license is the > example. > > The licensor: > > “If Licensor receives notification or otherwise learns of an alleged > violation of any Human Rights Principles relating to Licensee's use of the > Software, Licensor may in its discretion and without obligation (i) (a) > notify Licensee of such allegation and (b) allow Licensee 90 days from > notification under (i)(a) to investigate and respond to Licensor regarding > the allegation and (ii) (a) after the earlier of 90 days from notification > under (i)(a), or Licensee's response under (i)(b), notify Licensee of License > termination and (b) allow Licensee an additional 90 days from notification > under (ii)(a) to cease use of the Software.” > > There is no requirement that the licensee actually has committed a violation > of human rights. Just that the licensor feels like they did and didn’t like > the answer they got back. > > So they can ignore human rights violations from entities they like and punish > those they don’t for alleged infractions without any due process or concrete > evidence that a human rights violation has actually occurred. > > And the license doesn’t say anything about “minimum set of freedoms” set by > the “collective agreement” by the world but instead > > “Where the Human Rights Laws of more than one jurisdiction are applicable to > the use of the Software, the Human Rights Laws that are most protective of > the individuals or groups harmed shall apply.” > > Not the minimal set but the maximum. By pretty much anybody...heck, I used > to live in a municipality that outlawed nuclear weapons...which if they could > make it stick worldwide I’d be inclined to agree with but given they can’t, > not so much. > > It may be that I have fallen off a turnip truck but it wasn’t yesterday. > >>> On Mar 8, 2020, at 1:34 PM, Coraline Ada Ehmke <coral...@idolhands.com> >>> wrote: >> >>> On Mar 6, 2020, at 11:04 AM, Russell Nelson <nel...@crynwr.com> wrote: >>> >>> I do NOT like the idea of ethical open source. It completely turns the idea >>> of "forking without permission" into "you can only run this software if I >>> think you are a good person.” >> >> >> I see statements like this being thrown around so often, and I’m really sick >> of it being repeated with exactly ZERO backing evidence. It is a slippery >> slope fallacy with no basis in reality. >> >> No ethical source license that I am aware of allows a licensor to >> discriminate against anyone for “not being a nice person”, not being >> likeable, or any other arbitrary and subjective criteria. >> >> The Hippocratic License, for example, does not discriminate against any >> person or group, nor against any field of endeavor. It simply states that >> the software may not be used in the commission of human rights violations. >> This is not a liberal vs conservative position; it is not a fuzzy grey area >> that is open to interpretation; it is not open to subjective “armchair” >> interpretation; it does not rely on a belief system that varies from person >> to person or place to place. It relies on the collective agreement of >> representatives from all the nations in the world coming together to >> establish the very minimum set of freedoms granted to every living human >> being. >> >> And in the context of open source, it actually both embodies and strengthens >> the ideal of software freedom by ensuring that such software freedom is >> always in service of human freedom (with thanks to Karen Sandler of the >> Software Freedom Conservancy for that language.) >> >> Ethical source is about exploring ways to empower creators to fulfill their >> greater-than-average moral and ethical responsibilities to their industry >> and human society at large. It rejects the notion of technology as a neutral >> tool. There is plenty of research into how software encodes, enforces, and >> promotes bias against marginalized communities, is abused by governments >> around the world, and works against social progress. I encourage you to do >> some googling on the topic. >> >> If such a license exists that states “you can only run this software if I >> think you are a good person”, prove me wrong by sharing it. >> >> Respectfully, >> Coraline Ada Ehmke >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
