Ethics (OT) (was Re: Antiwar License)

[Sergey Goldgaber]

--- David Johnson <david at usermode.org> wrote:
>
> On Monday 03 March 2003 02:02 am, Sergey Goldgaber wrote:
> 
> > Of course it is more comfortable to pretend you are
> > still in the womb surrounded by safe abstractions but
> > in the real world, like it or not, your actions have
> > consequences.  The military application of open source
> > technology (your work) to kill living, breathing, real
> > people is but one warning sign.
> 
> The only reason that you are able to demand certain social
> attitudes in your software licenses is because as the author
> of the software you get to make the rules that govern its
> distribution. IMHO, you are abusing 
> your power as the author in doing this.

If you believe that such rules abuse one's power as an
author, then clearly you are faced with the decision of
whether you are willing to abuse your power as an author
in order to try to prevent your software from being
used to kill people.

> And the current pending war is hardly the only issue that people
> are concerned about. Consider the state that software would be in
> if every possible issue were raised in a license.

Yes, it is always possible that people everywhere will
restrict software use based on their ethics.  This may not
be a positive result from a utilitarian perspective of
deriving maximum use from software (pesky ethics have a knack
for just getting in the way), but for those who act in
an ethical manner this result will be desirable.

Your concerns may be about "the state of software", but mine
is about whether my work will be used to kill.  A concern
with a prevalance of ethical licenses causing havoc on
the the usefullness of software can not be a primary
one for me.

> Or to focus it in a bit, how far do you want your antiwar license
> clause to go? Will it affect people that are in the military even
> if the use is personal? What about civilians contractors when they
> go home from work? The janitors that mop the floors at the
> Pentagon? The farmer that
> grows the corn that feeds the soldiers?

The military and military contractors, imo, are perfect
candidates for license restrictions.  A license with just these
restrictions may not eliminate every possible use in support of
war (although "use in support of war" could be another prohibiting
clause) but it will be better than what we have now, which
places no restrictions on war use.

> This slope is too slippery to start down upon.

A slippery slope argument can be made about anything, and it
is always equally unconvincing, unless you're able to predict
what is going to happen.  Yes, maybe ethical licensing will
get "out of control" and the whole world of software will
come crashing down because everyone will start making a
license for their pet issue.  However, maybe the focus will
stay on fighting war.  Either eventuality is no excuse for
doing nothing, imo.  Because leaving things as they are
clearly allows people to use your work to kill, and that
is unacceptable for me.

Of course, everyone should decide for themselves what use
of their work is acceptable and what use is not.  One thing
that people can not do is stay on the sidelines on the
issue.  One way or the other, either you're allowing
use of your work to kill or you're not.



  --Sergey

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3