[License-discuss] How can we as a community help empower authors outside license agreements?

Sun Mar 22 03:37:34 UTC 2020

Gil Yehuda wrote:

*	But am I responsible for your actions? Was I a knowing and willing participant? Did I fail to act in a reasonable manner to stop the crime? I'm sure there are lots of great questions that lawyers here can expound upon. But open source licenses have limitations of warranty text -- that might protect me from some claims, maybe not all. Again, a good legal question. 

This answers that legal question in OSL 3.0:

15) Right to Use. You may use the Original Work in all ways not otherwise restricted or conditioned by this License or by law, and Licensor promises not to interfere with or be responsible for such uses by You.

Ethics is explicitly not the business of this open source license. For a simple example, this is why we don’t concern the license with exportability of the software conditioned by national laws.

/Larry

From: License-discuss <license-discuss-bounces at lists.opensource.org> On Behalf Of Gil Yehuda via License-discuss
Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2020 7:00 PM
To: Gil Yehuda via License-discuss <license-discuss at lists.opensource.org>
Cc: Gil Yehuda <gyehuda at verizonmedia.com>
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] How can we as a community help empower authors outside license agreements?

Tobie, 

It was my intent to convey a message with good faith. But to use humor to make a point. I think there are serious issues in the world. The appeal to human rights, genocide ("kids in cages"), etc. derails the productive conversation about copyrights and author-responsibilities. More importantly it offers victims of abuse little comfort. It uses an appeal to their victimhood in service of making changes to license texts. I don't think it's right, and does not conjure the term "ethical" in my mind. If we're talking about making the world a better place, let's do something productive. This is a discussion list about licenses. Hers we talk about licenses.

As an author, I have granted to me by copyright laws and agreements certain rights, such as the right to copy, use, display, modify, perform, and distribute my work. I have the right to maintain that I am the author of the work, etc. As a person, I also have responsibilities -- some imposed by law, some by social conventions, some by my own moral sentiments. 

Licensing is the management of rights. Yet, I'm still responsible for my actions. If I execute a program I wrote that somehow breaks a law, exposes your data, infringes a trademark, takes down a government server, etc. someone's going to come after me. I probably should not use my code to cheat on my spouse. If I blaspheme God in my code, I might worry too. But I know that putting an OSI-license (or an ethical license) on my code does not absolve me from responsibility. If anything it just adds irony.

But am I responsible for your actions? Was I a knowing and willing participant? Did I fail to act in a reasonable manner to stop the crime? I'm sure there are lots of great questions that lawyers here can expound upon. But open source licenses have limitations of warranty text -- that might protect me from some claims, maybe not all. Again, a good legal question. 

But what if the crime you commit with my code is not actually a violation of a law, but something that irks me. Say you and I hold the opposite position on an important and heated social issue related to guns, abortion, death penalty, etc. and you use my code in service to the pursuit of your position (e.g. you set up a website to advocate your cause and use some Javascript code of mine). I might be upset about it. I might prefer not to publish code under an open source license fearing that someone who disagrees with me might use my code. That's OK. I'm not obligated to publish my code. I have the right to restrict it. I'll note that restricting my code does not make me more ethical, just more discriminatory (and less open).

But what if your use of my code is more than simply setting up a website. What if you commit a heinous crime that somehow involved my code? e.g. you used a server with an operating system that contained a contribution I made to that code. Who is responsible for the crime? Presumably, you.  

Now, should I feel bad that I helped you? If I was the kind of person who felt bad that you used my code to create a website I didn't like I could also feel bad that you used my code to commit a crime. Or maybe I don't feel bad -- since your action was unrelated to me. This is an interesting question. I'm simply not convinced that it's a licensing question. Moreover, framing it this way de-focuses on the perpetrator of the crime and does no service to the victims.

If we want to talk about human rights, genocide, crimes, etc. let's think about the victims and ask "what would they want us to do?" There is no scenario that I imagine a victim showing gratitude that OSI modified the OSD to approve licenses with anti-genocide clauses. In fact, the victims of human rights violations are probably yelling "what the hell are you guys doing -- can you see we're suffering!" while we discuss the merits of adding text to limit fields of endeavors in ways that make us feel like we've done them some service. 

Thus, in good faith: discussing the taxonomy of discriminatory licenses (source available, mostly-open, etc.) I understand. Discussing how this helps address human rights, ethics, etc. -- no I don't understand. I really don't. At first it sounded intellectually interesting, but when in a world where people actually face real crisis, a discussion of how the OSD text somehow relates to genocide seems tone-deaf and in poor taste. Hence my comment.

I'm inspired by the wisdom conveyed in the 1992 movie "My Cousin Vinny" where a similar concept was addressed related to a seemingly inconsequential aspect of how a novice hunter should dress to portray he fits in...

Vinny Gambini : What about these pants I got on, you think they're O.K.? [Looks down] Oh!

Mona Lisa Vito : [comes out of the bathroom]  Imagine you're a deer. You're prancing along, you get thirsty, you spot a little brook, you put your little deer lips down to the cool clear water... BAM! A f#$% bullet rips off part of your head! Your brains are laying on the ground in little bloody pieces! Now I ask ya. Would you give a f@#$ what kind of pants the son of a bitch who shot you was wearing?

I assume that victims of human rights abuse feel similarly about the license text in our source code. 

Gil Yehuda: I help with external technology engagement

On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 2:44 PM Russell McOrmond <russellmcormond at gmail.com <mailto:russellmcormond at gmail.com> > wrote:

On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 7:22 PM Gil Yehuda via License-discuss <license-discuss at lists.opensource.org <mailto:license-discuss at lists.opensource.org> > wrote:

I think part of the issue here is that in the face of real human issues, this seems like a misuse of energy. Licenses manage the use of copyright rights. We fight genocide with laws, with armies, maybe a good protest or two? 

I've participated in those protests and discussed those laws with policy makers, but the part of my personal activism that I believe is the most effective does relate to copyright and related government granted exclusivity.

I spent much of my life trying to make fellow software authors transparent and accountable for the policies that their software and licenses inflicted upon society.  This will do far more to protect against geonocide committed with the use of technology than those who work against this ethical goal and try to convince authors that being for or against geonocide is something that should be allowed to be encoded in software or softare license agreements.

While the discussion of geonocide may have been contrived, it it still useful to illustrate the problem.  I believe that not only is the descrimination that the "ethical" source movement not compatable with the open source development methodology and the variety of communities it is compatable with, I also believe it is counterproductive to the stated goal of reducing the threat of geonocide.

_______________________________________________
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org <http://opensource.org>  email address.

License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss at lists.opensource.org <mailto:License-discuss at lists.opensource.org> 
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20200321/d23791b1/attachment-0001.html>