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

[Russell McOrmond]

On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 12:29 PM Coraline Ada Ehmke <coraline at idolhands.com>
wrote:

> Can you provide an example of an ethical source license that is based on a
> controversial social or political line?
>

I'm not trying to be confrontational, but I'm honestly confused by this
question.

Isn't the point of ethical source licenses to have software authors exert
social or political views within their licenses?  Given all social and
political policies are disagreed with by someone, otherwise no policy would
need to exist (the policy isn't a NOP), isn't the real question "Can you
provide me an example of an ethical source license that isn't based on a
controversial social or political line"?

It feels to me that you want to declare some social or political policies
as "obvious",  bypass the human-to-human political process that determines
what is actually controversial or not, and have empowered software authors
declare that they are correct and that everyone else is wrong (or in the
overtly aggressive language you have chosen, unethical).

In the 1990's the Ontario (Canada) Progressive Conservative party launched
what they called a "Common Sense Revolution".   What became obvious to me
at that time is that there was no such thing as "common sense" as what
different people considered to be "common sense" conflicted with each other.

I really wish social and political polices were obvious -- it would have
saved several thousands of hours so far of my own life trying to work
politically (organising groups, meetings with politicians, etc) to protect
what I consider to be human rights from other people who often claim their
opposition was in support of what they claimed was human rights.


Lets take another stab with an example.

Anyone who supports a full spectrum of family planning (including abortion
rights) as well as equal marriage (any combination of biological or
identity genders) will know that this often comes up against what many
believe to be religious rights.  As soon as you speak as I do (and many
people in Quebec do -- I live in Ontario) about "reasonable accommodation"
of religious groups in recognising this conflict, some will directly call
you a bigot.  The reality is that these conflicting sets of rights cannot
be absolute as they are contradictory, and when it comes to the rights of
individuals to control their own bodies, love who they love, and express
their identity (not only gender), I exist on that side of that specific
rights-vs-rights policy debate.  While I believe religious persons should
be free to believe what they wish and peacefully assemble, I do not believe
that religious rights should extend to allowing these groups to impose
their religious views on others (including reducing or extinguishing what I
consider to be other people's basic human rights).

An "ethical software license" that bars any violation of human rights,
including alleged religious rights (some of which are enforced in some
countries), would exclude me from using the software as I am a long-time
activist in support of contradicting human rights.

-- 
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>

"The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware
manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or portable
media player from my cold dead hands!" http://c11.ca/own
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20200309/d01368ec/attachment.html>