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

[Russell McOrmond]

On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 3:39 PM Coraline Ada Ehmke <coraline at idolhands.com>
wrote:

> Hostile takeover is very strong language, and I believe a gross
> misunderstanding of my goal (speaking now for myself, not the movement.)
> The OSD was written in 1998 with some very specific goals. It has been a
> wild success. Open source is the glue, the infrastructure, the go-to
> toolkit powering the modern age of computing. Mission accomplished. But
> licensing via OSI-approved instruments is about the rights of users, not
> creators.
>


You may feel it is a gross misunderstanding, but please don't quickly
dismiss those of us who feel this is an attempt at a hostile takeover.  I
also don't think you can declare "mission accomplished" without
understanding what the mission was for a wider variety of participants.
The very fact you believe that we should be looking for instruments to
empower software creators suggests that at least my mission wasn't
accomplished.


When I joined the Free Software movement in the early 1990's it was because
I felt that software authors (now I recognise it is copyright and patent
holders which are not often the authors) had too much power, and were
(inevitably -- human nature) abusing that power.  I found this movement via
the gnu.misc.discuss newsgroup that was specifically encouraging creators
to waive those rights, with copyleft being stronger in encouraging authors
of derivatives to also waive those rights.

I am involved specifically BECAUSE the movement discouraged what I consider
to be the excessive control that software owners have over society.
(copyright, patent holders -- I don't consider these "rights", but policies
-- I believe WIPO/etc has grossly misinterpreted UN UDHR article 27).


When Open Source came along later I saw it as the hopefully successful
marketing arm of the software freedom movement.  Even though my personal
involvement came primarily from an ethical/political perspective, I
recognised that the policy needed to have multisectoral support to have the
impact required.  I don't consider the promotion to be so-much
pro-business, as pro-success.




Any movement that seeks to empower software creators will only end up
empowering non-creator corporations that control the copyright/patent
exclusivity.  I consider the power over society of creator and non-creator
software copyright/patent holders to be the problem and thus cannot be part
of the solution.

I understand the goals you have of trying to ensure that software isn't
used to inflict harm, but I believe that empowering software
copyright/patent holders is contrary to those goals.  It is because I agree
with your goals that I disagree with your methods.  I believe that software
freedom must always be in service of human freedom, which is why I strongly
disagree with embracing/harnessing/encouraging/exemplifying the very
problematic policies (excessive control of the rules that govern society by
software owners) which put human freedom at risk.


I am aware that not all FLOSS developers participate with FLOSS for the
same reasons, but the incompatibility is only recent.   The AGPL was the
first FSF/OSI approved license I saw that focused on the private interests
of software copyright/patent holders, and I believe this opened the doors
to a different way of thinking that is contrary to the policy goals that I
have been working on most of my adult life.

It is not the stated policy goals of the AGPL of seeking to have source
code distributed that I disagree with.  I consider the distribution of
source code to be a requirement for the accountability/transparency of the
software rules which govern our lives, much like I agree with access to
information and other laws that seek accountability/transparency of
government rules.

What I disagree with is the very notion that software copyright holders
should have so much control over society as to able to dictate policy to
those who happen to provide a service using software.  I believe we as a
global community should be advocating for changes in domestic laws and
treaties to carve this out of the control of software copyright/patent
holders, as this level of control will trivially be abused to harm the
rights/interests of society.



So.... if the OSI continues in this policy direction it will no longer be
advocating for things that are compatible with my policy goals. I believe
in human rights and human freedom, which is why I reject and from a
moral/ethical perspective am forced to opposed movements which seek to
further empower software authors/owners.

You may interpret this as being deliberately antagonistic, but I don't feel
like I am being given any choice.  Whether or not those promoting policies
which I consider to be a risk to human rights/freedoms agree with my
interpretation of those policies doesn't really matter at the end of the
day.  I suspect you will feel the same way, as you will be aware that there
will be many individuals within the organisations you evaluate as harmful
to human rights/freedoms that believe they are doing a public good as well
(I doubt any of the people working for these organisations believe they are
villains).


You will notice I mention the UN UDHR, as a declaration that people
consider to be a "universal" declaration of human rights (It's even in the
name).  What I have observed in my time alive (I'm also in the 50+ club) is
that there is nothing universal about how people understand human rights.
This is true even if we narrowly look at the primarily global north/western
ideals articulated in the UN UDHR.  As I've articulated earlier, there is
even major policy disagreements between agencies that were created by the
UN in order to promote the various articles of the UN UDHR.  If the UN
can't agree on what is and isn't human rights within itself, how can we
expect there to be anything universal about the interpretation in the
general public which don't spend their time actually thinking about the
promotion of human rights.


P.S.  I am a Canadian, so I have far more to say about the awfully named
"Indian Act" and the Canadian bill to implement CUSMA/USMCA that I do about
US Immigration and Customs.  My answer to US customs policy is that I've
refused on moral ground to travel to the USA since early 2001 (even before
9/11).  As our software projects are global in nature, and should take a
more global approach, focusing on provincial issues within licenses rather
than through domestic political work seems unhelpful.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20200309/433835bc/attachment.html>