notasnark, 6 months ago

@jens Who gets to define what is unethical? Do we really want a plethora of software licenses all defining their own version of ethics, based on various religious beliefs for example?

jens, 6 months ago

@notasnark Again, we have that anyway. We have that outside of FOSS where license terms are pretty much arbitrary, and we already have that within FOSS where different licenses abound.

What would be so wrong with having a CC style FOSS license framework that lets you pick a couple of common options, and add restrictions on use sections?

Due to how such a framework works, it'd actually be less complicated to check those sections than two entirely different licenses for your use.

notasnark, 6 months ago

@jens Outside of FOSS I'm not really concerned about.

Ticking a box isn't the complicated bit. It makes deciding which software to use more complicated, and could lead to lots of duplicated functionality.

Oops, can't use that "GPL+No Adult Content" image library as a dependency, because you don't want to limit that use. Now someone has to write a new library from scratch.

jens, 6 months ago

@notasnark If we had a monoculture of GPL, I'd agree with you, but have you looked at the OSI list/SPDX identifiers? And those are only the licenses which have vaguely related terms...

lobingera, 6 months ago

@jens There is no way to control, how your work is used - and by whom.

jens, 6 months ago

@lobingera that's true in some sense, but in another, it's not.

If it were universally true, intellectual property laws would never have existed.

lobingera, 6 months ago

@jens The area where IPR laws apply is very limited in comparison to the whole usage space.

State actors (or three-letter-agencies) very often don't need to take a look on IPR laws ...

frank, 6 months ago

@lobingera @jens Plus: IPR is effectively destroying the free flow of knowledge and information. In private, I shit on IPR, but I cannot do this in areas that are bound to be republished.

That would be the same for software licences - effectively they would not be free anymore.

jens, 6 months ago

@frank @lobingera This isn't a defense of IPR laws in any way, nor a question of its reach. I agree with both of you on the practicalities.

But freedom exists within the context of IPR law, whatever its limitations.

So within that context, it only looks at what harm restrictions can do, and not at what they can prevent.

I'm not a fan of that.

It's the same spirit of argument as saying guns don't kill people, people do - which is true enough, but it also absolves manufacturers of their part.

lobingera, 6 months ago

@jens @frank But we're back at: You cannot control how your product is used.

Yes, laws and regulations exist.

My job is connected to create communication systems. They can be used to communicate OR for surveillance.

I cannot control this.

jens, 6 months ago

@lobingera You can control what product you build. That's both a macro choice and a series of micro choices.

Don't build guns. Or do build communications stuff, but in a way that fights surveillance.

@frank

lobingera, 6 months ago

@jens @frank

https://netzpolitik.org/2019/5g-bundesregierung-will-anbieter-zur-ueberwachung-zwingen/

jens, 6 months ago

@lobingera @frank Yep, ZITiS also was at IETF. 'Nuff said.

frank, 6 months ago

@jens @lobingera I totally get your point regarding the unethical uses of free software, but I for me have decided to take this unpleasant reality as better than the possibility to always have a lawyer by my side whenever I want to use free software.

I maintain a public wiki for computer science classes in german schools in the knowing I can get sued at any moment over IPR, regardless how well I try to follow the rules, I really do not want that for software.

jens, 6 months ago

@frank This already is the reality for software.

@lobingera