[License-discuss] Thoughts on the subject of ethical licenses

[Chris Travers]

On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 7:18 PM Drew DeVault <sir at 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 at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org