fmII
Sat, Sep 06th home | browse | articles | contact | chat | submit | faq | newsletter | about | stats | scoop 00:51 UTC
in
Section
login «
register «
recover password «
[Article] add comment [Article]

 Use of Open Source Software Should Be Restricted
 by Bjorn Gohla, in Editorials - Sat, May 12th 2001 00:00 UTC

Information should be Free... but what if it's used to take away the freedom of others? The GPL places technical restrictions on the use of the software it protects. Bjorn Gohla believes it should also place political restrictions on it.

Copyright notice: All reader-contributed material on freshmeat.net is the property and responsibility of its author; for reprint rights, please contact the author directly.

The advent of the Internet and Linux spurred interest in Free Software that even made it into the general media, and millions of users around the globe are happily running computers without having paid for any software. Along with the casual home user, numerous companies and governments are discovering the power of the Open Source approach.

With non-free commercial software, there is always a chain of legal contracts connecting the software producer through various intermediaries to the user, thereby theoretically giving the producer control over who can have the software and under what conditions. Usually, this involves payment of money and exempting the producer from any damages the software might cause.

With Open Source software, there is also a legal connection between the producer and the user, but it's weaker and less formal. The producer will never even know how many people use the software. With the GNU GPL, the user is allowed to do anything with the software as long as any changes to the program are also licensed under the GPL. Anyone may change or use the software, even in ways the original author does not like (see GNU Emacs versus Lucid/XEmacs). In general, the Open Source paradigm leads to consensus-based collaboration, with influence based on the participants' knowledge and dedication. This approach easily extends beyond software, and could have political implications.

This philosophy produced some solutions that would have hardly been possible under the conventional paradigm of commercial software, and along the way, it promises to promote a sense of altruism and social responsibility that's very necessary in today's seemingly egotistical world. This philosophy of openness and freedom is being extended to other areas such as music, so one may say that the Open Source philosophy is the enlightenment of the information age.

But think about this: Some time ago, I created a firewall for a medium-sized company. It included an HTTP cache that scanned the company's Web traffic for viruses and bad Javascript. While working on that, I was struck by how easy it was to modify and redirect requests. You could just take out the virus scanner and plug in a Perl script that scans for words like "democratic", "liberal", and "human rights" and, if it finds them, denies that the page was available or, even worse, substitutes something "harmless". It would be a perfect tool of political repression, at almost zero cost. And one could think of many more such scenarios; just think of IBM's alleged involvement in the holocaust. I had been aware of the possibility of using information technology to those ends, but was disturbed when I stopped to consider that you can do it with Free Software, perhaps even better than with commercial software.

So it is possible to turn Free Software against itself and the ethics it stands for (I hold it to be implausible that any Open Source programmer could want this). The possibility is frightening, but if it is possible, someone will do it.

What should be done about it? For a program published under the GPL, the copyright holder could extend the license so that the use of the software shall not infringe on anyone's rights, but how should this restriction be phrased? What would be a reasonable demand? A company denying its employees access to porn sites probably seems reasonable to most, but what about a government doing the same to its citizens?

Enforceability is another question. Open Source licenses (GPL or any other) constitute legally binding contracts but have hardly been tested in the U.S. courts, much less outside the United States.

The best one can hope for is a symbolic move, perhaps a clause appended to the GPL stating that in using the program or any derived work, the user explicitly acknowledges, fully supports, and complies with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (or something similar, to avoid suspicion of moral imperialism).

Author's bio: Björn Gohla is a 21-year-old physics student who works part time as a software developer. His home computers have been running Linux exclusively since shortly after it became available. In his free time, he works with the constructed language Lojban and as a member of Amnesty International, trying to promote human rights.

T-Shirts and Fame!

We're eager to find people interested in writing articles on software-related topics. We're flexible on length, style, and topic, so long as you know what you're talking about and back up your opinions with facts. Anyone who writes an article gets a t-shirt from ThinkGeek in addition to 15 minutes of fame. If you think you'd like to try your hand at it, let jeff.covey@freshmeat.net know what you'd like to write about.

[Comments are disabled]

 Comments

[»] too long for a comment but too short for a full article
by (mt) parasew - Mar 10th 2003 16:32:45

i didn't read all the comments, as the list of postings is far too long, but as i see that may people are interested in this discussion i wanted to point you all to some references, that seem to fit in here.

the free speech movement from the 60's
http://www.fsm-a.org/
http://sunsite.berkeley.edu:2020/dynaweb/teiproj/oh/fsm/@Generic__CollectionView

`Free software'' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept,
you should think of ``free'' as in ``free speech,'' not as in ``free beer.''
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

what also totally fits inside here, is part of the works of michelle foucault
http://foucault.info/
especially Discourse and Truth
http://foucault.info/documents/parrhesia/
but also
http://foucault.info/documents/archaeologyOfKnowledge/

there have always been restrictions and laws, that are existing mostly because of powerful people and lobbies set them up.
the best example is in austria and germany after the second world war: the political parties (equal if left or right wing) decided to stop returning so called "arisiertes eigentum" after some years of the war, because they had the fear of losing potential voters. this term used, means property which the nazis took from mostly jewish people and gave it to members of their movement (mostly they sold to raise money for the war).

even if you look at this time, during the nazi-regime, information was hidden and destroyed that would not fit into their ideologies - disinformation and propaganda ruled.
after the allies won WW2, in the places where the former 3rd reich was set up (germany, austria, etc.) they prohibited the party, the movement and all related iconographics, texts and so on (that's why extreme-right-wing parties still can exist in the us and everywhere else)
-- from the point of free speech and free information also not the right decision.
the strange thing is the fact that "hidden" or prohibited knowledge or information is even more attractive to some people.
see
http://u-n-o.org/

foucault:
discipline and punishment
http://foucault.info/documents/foucault.disciplineAndPunish.torture.en.html
eye of power (on the panopticon-architecture in prisons)
http://foucault.info/documents/foucault.eyeOfPower.en.html
the Subject and Power
http://foucault.info/documents/foucault.power.en.html

not really the same but similar strategies can be watched nowadays when watching copyright issues and so on.
http://www.infoworld.com/article/02/10/04/021007opcurve_1.html

dmca
http://anti-dmca.org/links.html
http://dmca.0rf.at/

information wants to be free!
http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/II/IWtbF.html
http://mikro.org/Events/OS/interface5/
http://www.google.com/search?q=information%20wants%20to%20be%20free

but even when making all information digitally available, this doesn't mean that is is accesible for most of the people.
the digital divide
http://www.digitaldividenetwork.org
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/dn/index.html
http://www.google.com/search?q=digital%20divide

how much are online? and where?
http://www.bartleby.com/151/a103.html
http://www.geog.ucl.ac.uk/casa/martin/statistics.html
http://www.mids.org/mapsale/world/
http://internet-statistics-guide.netfirms.com/


the idea of free speech, same rights for everyone and free information is very old, but still not understood by the majority of people. actually some of them keep things like they are, to have their domination on some field
http://www.google.com/search?q=microsoft%20on%20open%20source

see noam chomsky,
http://monkeyfist.com/ChomskyArchive
http://www.google.com/search?q=chomsky
especially the publications
"war against people"
"profit over people"
btw: why are these publications not freely available? ;)

parasew

--------------------
http://5uper.net

[reply] [top]

[»] Lions and tigers and bears . . . OH MY!
by cmos - Oct 20th 2001 11:06:57

Ill take freedom of choice over freedom from anxiety any day. Justifying a viewpoint by using "WHAT IF . . . WHAT IF . . . !" hand wringing would have left us wondering if we should wear animal skins to stay warm. Just because an issue has not been considered before, does not mean it cannot be resolved. P.S. To those involved in animal rights, please substitute "polyester" for "animal skins".

[reply] [top]

[»] A very old problem
by Patrice Ossona de Mendez - Aug 26th 2001 02:53:59

This is a very old problem that the lack of control of the use of intellectual productions. Adding any kind of "legal restrictions" is clearly no use, as the ones you would like to attack have all the legal ways to get ride of it. A similar problem happens in Science: shall I or not publish my results, given that I do not know exactly what can be done with it, and given that I have exactly no chance to know what will be all the possible positive vs negative consequences.

"Science sans conscience n'est que ruine de l'âme"
Science without conscience is only ruin of the soul (?)

-> No kind of contract may limit the intrisc responsability of the authors. But the inexistence of contract does not limit
the responsability of the user. In case of human-rights viloation, this later cause might be a reason for attacks, not the only misuse of a software.

-> As the dictators have usually more money and access to information than their victims, GPL is a way to decrease the importance of money and increase information, so that both parts eventually get equal access to softwares.

--
Pom

[reply] [top]

[»] Puhleeze
by WindozeSux - Jul 1st 2001 11:21:55

Information, like any powerful tool, can be misused and used against other people. The intentions of this article are respectable, but the approach is wrong, and I don't think there's any real way to do it. If we start to "restrict" information because it could be used against us/others, that's just the first step to a Microsoft EULA.

Free information and software carries great benefits, but also risks, such as these political issues. That's just the way things are.

[reply] [top]

[»] Free software ??
by Lovechild - Jun 28th 2001 12:10:51

If we restrict the use of free software, then it wouldn't
be free anymore.

I think it is a bad idea to restrict the use of free
software - the idea is that everybody benfits from the
work, right ?

--
Make coffee, not scripts

[reply] [top]

    [»] Re: Free software ??
    by George Bourdieu - Jun 30th 2001 22:23:56

    I think we all realize that "rights" as the term is used here are not actual self contained entities. Rather they are merely those concepts and ideals that are provided by a society through the government's willingness to protect them through penalization or regrettably physical force. And depending upon the political tone of the moment the latter method is not always the last resort.

    I have seen no evidence whatsoever that the UDHR has had any serious effect upon the overall level of freedom in the world. I have seen the effects of massive physical force and economic coercion on human rights. Both for the good and bad dependant upon your point of view.

    Realistically speaking though, any government or organization of any size can find someone to develop the necessary software to meet their needs. The trick is for them to maintain the strength and integrity of said software against the attacks on it's undesired mode of use/misuse that are for all intents and purposes, a certainty.

    The beauty of the whole IT realm is that it carries on the age old game that is best exemplified by the constant evolution of better more secure locks being followed by the evolution of better lockbreakers. As far as I'm concerned the more viruses and attacks all the way around, the better. It's in the battle where are wits are tested, honed, and polished.

    If everyone cooperated we'd all be sipping tea in cozy huts singing Kum By Ya.

    For my part, thank god Eve ate that apple. If it weren't for her naughty behaviour I fear I'd be spending my placid idyllic days attempting to convince the lions that the lambs they lie next to are delicious, lest they set their eyes on me and make things a little bit too interesting.

    Ciao Babies

    --
    They sicken of the calm, who know the storm. Dorothy Parker

    [reply] [top]

[»] Freedom ZERO
by Daniel Nagy - Jun 28th 2001 07:04:11

If a license denies Freedom #0, that is the use of
the software for any purpose, no matter how
malicous by someone's standards, it is NOT A FREE
SOFTWARE LICENSE. I am aware that Open-Source is
not exactly Free Software but Open Source does not
have a consistent moral standard, as far as I
know. It is a more pragmatic approach.

However, I think that Freedom #0 is essential even
for the less zealous freedom seekers. Should anyone
question it, the question "Who decides?" arises at
once. Indeed, who shall decide what use of a piece
of software is appropriate and what is not? The
author? I don't think so.

The Open-Source development process involves
contributions from many co-authors, who usually
accept the leadership of the original author,
though not always; Remember the emacs/xemacs fork.
Did the author claim any other right than being
mentioned as the original author (which is the
ONLY RIGHTFUL AUTHOR'S RIGHT, which should be
unalienable, in my opinion, and all other IP
rights are harmful and unjust) others would not
contribute as readily as they did otherwise. What
prevents non-free software projects from attracting
a broad co-developer audinence similar to that of
the free projects? I think, it is the lack of freedom.

You inevitably alienate co-developers by imposing
restrictions on the use of your software. Freedom
is a key element in the success of our flourishing
open-source community. Take it away, and it will
collapse, no matter how noble your intentions are.

Finally, I think, you cannot prevent anything like
massacres, genocides or holocausts by software
licenses. If you delve deeper into the issue, you
find that law is mere fiction. GNU GPL has not
been tried at courts. The free
software paradigm shall endure much farther than
law-based market economies, since it does not
require laws, law enforcement and markets to
function and thrive. A restriction, however, that
you are proposing to impose, would only be
effective through law enforcement, which is
arguably flawed in many ways.

Western-style democracy and market economy is not
necessarily the last word in the evolution of our
societies. Free Software appears to be more
fundamental an achievement, in my view. Along with
freedom #0.

[reply] [top]

[»] Information wants to be free!
by Bud Hovell - Jun 25th 2001 12:52:24

Hmmm ... really? Well, if that's so, how do you feel about unrestricted access to your medical records? Would it be ok to use GPL software employed to restrict it from prying eyes?

As to governments concealing information from their citizenry, this is a common practice -- and many would argue a necessary one, at least in some cases such as sensitive on-going diplomatic discussions. That it's also frequently abused goes without saying, governments being what they are. They are, after all, the single institution which mainly does as it pleases, with duly annointed statutes ready at hand to make it all "legal" -- and with no noticeable consequence, even if breach of the law is entirely indisputable.

It would be idle fantasy to count on some restriction by private contract to have any effect whatever on actual behaviors of national government. The crown, after all, can only be sued by its own agreement. And it only agrees when it is politically expedient.

There is nothing to criticize about any urge to defend liberty. But liberty isn't license, and the devil is often in the details when real life inevitably compels determination of where one ends and the other takes up.

Lawyers make a very fine living, in the US, because so many of our laws have been driven into existence by teary-eyed sentiment, unalloyed by the minimum legal precision necessary to readily define standards of compliance.

Often, therefore, the courts simply have to make it up as they go along because the legislature had no clear idea of what they intended -- except pandering to constituents to perpetuate incumbancy. Too cynical you say? Look again.

I compliment your sentiments. But I worry also about possible consequences, were your idea ever to get real "legs" and end up in the court system.

Age-old wisdom cautions we be careful what we ask for -- for fear we might get it.

[reply] [top]

[»] You have it backwards
by lunk - Jun 3rd 2001 16:25:14

*ANY* changes in the software used must be published under the GPL which is what allows the freedom to make those redirections in information public knowledge. Having everything public knowledge is what keeps you safe from those types of repressions.

[reply] [top]

    [»] Hm..
    by Jungle Junkee - Jun 10th 2001 15:36:23

    This is really quite foolish.

    I'm almost sickened by the oncoming of this new wave of 'intellectual property' power struggles. All over the geek news sites, all you see is talk about intellectual property.

    Intellectual property should only come into consideration when your software is created for YOUR USE only and it is stolen. Then, by all means, cry, whine, bitch and call your lawyer. You have that right. If you create a new database software for your company that is 10x better than anything on the market, and an employee steals it, modifies the source and sells it, you should be able to do something about that -- and even this is only MY opinion.

    The problem is, people create software and release it to the public domain, no matter if they charge for it or not, and then want to cry when people do what they want with it. If you park your car in a bad neighborhood with the doors open, the keys in the ignition and leave a note on the seat that says "you can use this, just make sure you bring it back by 4:30 tomorrow", you should know well enough that you're not getting your car back (at least not in the same condition). Why is it that people who create something (code, music, literature, whatever) and release it to the public EXPECT their goods to be held to a higher standard.

    Any license, in any form, is stupid to begin with. People are going to do what they want. To use a license to promote your own ethics isnt going to work, so why the hell you even brought it up is beyond me.

    Ethics and morals are a personal thing. We as people have already lost enough rights to this type of 'legislate the shit out of everything so everything is equal' attitude. The world is not equal, or fair, or even inherently (sp?) good. Stop worrying about other people and tend to your own backyard. You cannot change others by imposing your beliefs on them. Instead, try being the best person you can be by your own standard, and hope others fall in line or at least respect that standard.

    Just some food for thought..

    --
    ====================================== somebody set us up the bomb. ======================================

    [reply] [top]

[»] Too many goodsides
by Phactorial - May 29th 2001 07:05:26

Yes, it is true that you can change lots of software under GPL to do something that its intent was not to do but the fact is that open source software licenses have too many goodsider. If there was a bug in a program or a possible security hole the user can just edit the source code and fix the problem. If the program does not have what the user needs, he/she can fix it to his needs. If a software producer needs any help with the creation of his software, thanks to GPL and other open source software licenses the software producer will be able to hire employees to work on the application source code remotely.

[reply] [top]

[»] No mind about that
by TeLeNiEkO - May 26th 2001 17:27:31

If someone tried to restrict the freedom of information it would be morally punished, and as soon as the world showed offended by that those who tried to attempt to people rights would be punished. If a governenment decided to restrict what information someone could see on the net it would be punished, maybe doing nice iptables -j DENY to all of it's IP blocks. No country wants all of it's internet traffic to be denied (lots of money lost!) and the same goes for ISP's companies, etc. As long as there's a risk to be punished there will not be an infringenment of people's rights.

About IBM, Auswitch and all that. Everybody has a past, and everyone has done bad thinks. Probed or not, we all (?) try to do our best. Maybe someone left his/her boy/girlfriend for another boy/girl , which is a really bad thing, but then spent lots of time with the old girl/boyfriend to make sure he/she was right. So, good things and bad ones go toghether. And we can't judge somebody (or some enterprise) just by the things they did in a far past. Just look at all the things that were made possible thanks to IBM, for example, you can read me thanks to IBM, also thanks to Linux Torvalds, also Bill Gates (so sure taht there at least one hop between me and FM that is win based), and to lots of people and companies that all have done bad bad things (the first bad thing was to invent windows... ;o)

So, stop bullshitting about IBM and nazis, I don't think FM is there to discuss that kind of things. And don't worry about your freedoms, starting from expression and information, the world is there for that. If GPL software is used to restrict our freedoms we'll solve that.

See you,
TeLeNiEkO (MuPPeT)

--
- mutt r0x! -

[reply] [top]

[»] it's really simple
by jetson123 - May 18th 2001 21:44:38

Whoever gets to write the code chooses their license.

So, if you think imposing those kinds of restrictions helps, by all means, go ahead and do it. I think trying to restrict software in that way is counterproductive.

[reply] [top]

[»] Code ownership...
by andrew cooke / jara software - May 16th 2001 16:41:55

I'm starting to see that code ownership is kind-of the issue here. I (or people arguing for this idea) seem to be called Hitler (I suggest people get a little sense of perspective) because I want to control code that I write.

There seems to be an assumption that code I (for example) write belongs to everyone. That by restricting how that code is used I am *forcing* others to behave as I want.

But just because I release code for free doesn't mean it isn't my work. Why shouldn't I have control over what I produce? If people don't like the licence, they don't need to use the code. The only *forcing* I am doing is refusing to support people whose behaviour I find wrong/offensive/dangerous...

[reply] [top]

    [»] Re: Code ownership...
    by Alexander Bartolich - May 17th 2001 03:00:54


    > [...]
    > Why shouldn't I have control over what I
    > produce? If people don't like the
    > licence, they don't need to use the
    > code. The only *forcing* I am doing is
    > refusing to support people whose
    > behaviour I find
    > wrong/offensive/dangerous...
    I consider code to be speech. Source code is used to express ideas. To talk with each other. To communicate with peoples you have little else in common.

    IMHO your comprehension of source code fits well with the RIAA, Microsoft and US encryption export regulations.

    I don't care what your intentions are. By using source code to restrict freedom you have chosen the dark side of the force.

    [reply] [top]

      [»] Re: Code ownership...
      by Steve Lhomme - May 17th 2001 06:42:33


      > I don't care what your intentions are.
      > By using source code to restrict freedom
      > you have chosen the dark side of the
      > force.
      Is freedom THE best thing to be acheived ?
      Is it your freedom to kill people ?
      Why do you think there are laws that restrict this kind of freedom ?

      [reply] [top]

        [»] Re: Code ownership...
        by Alexander Bartolich - May 17th 2001 08:13:24

        > Is freedom THE best thing to be acheived ?
        > Is it your freedom to kill people ?
        > Why do you think there are laws that restrict this kind of freedom ?

        I am talking about freedom of speech and thought.
        Do you really consider ideas to be weapons?

        [reply] [top]

          [»] Re: Code ownership...
          by Steve Lhomme - May 17th 2001 09:33:59


          > I am talking about freedom of speech
          > and thought.
          > Do you really consider ideas to be
          > weapons?
          Yep, a lot ! But of course, that's only philosphy.
          Free software is one of the best one.

          [reply] [top]

          [»] Re: Code ownership...
          by damaged - Jun 6th 2001 13:02:50


          > Do you really consider ideas to be
          > weapons?
          >
          >
          Have we forgotten "The pen is mightier than the sword"?

          --
          rot13; jub | terc -v oybaqr | qngr; pq ~;hamvc; gbhpu; fgevc; svatre; zbhag; tnfc; lrf; hcgvzr; hzbhag; fyrrc

          [reply] [top]

    [»] Re: Code ownership...
    by damaged - Jun 6th 2001 12:45:25


    > I'm starting to see that code ownership
    > is kind-of the issue here. I (or people
    > arguing for this idea) seem to be called
    > Hitler (I suggest people get a little
    > sense of perspective) because I want to
    > control code that I write.
    >
    > There seems to be an assumption that
    > code I (for example) write belongs to
    > everyone. That by restricting how that
    > code is used I am *forcing* others to
    > behave as I want.
    >
    > But just because I release code for
    > free doesn't mean it isn't my work. Why
    > shouldn't I have control over what I
    > produce? If people don't like the
    > licence, they don't need to use the
    > code. The only *forcing* I am doing is
    > refusing to support people whose
    > behaviour I find
    > wrong/offensive/dangerous...
    >
    Who says anyone HAS to deny/go against use of his/her code in the future?...you seem to be wanting to defend yourself from some paranoia fantasy that your new Perl module is going to be used to torture some group of people...someone capable of doing such things is SURLEY not gonna give a god damn hoot about whether YOU agree or not, and it certainly is not going to stop SOMEONE out there from saying "hey its so and sos fault he WROTE that software" you guys are wasting time even considering such a clause...it's utterly moronic.

    --
    rot13; jub | terc -v oybaqr | qngr; pq ~;hamvc; gbhpu; fgevc; svatre; zbhag; tnfc; lrf; hcgvzr; hzbhag; fyrrc

    [reply] [top]

[»] Could not freedom be restored by ssl
by Jeff Sadowski - May 15th 2001 15:01:37

If every computer sent out a public key to recieve the message then
the message would be sent encrypted this could be set up in the web browser.

There's other ways of encryption and varification that users don't even have to be aware
of.

You can't filter all encrypted information without people starting to notice it.

I think this article has alot to do with computer privacy act.

[reply] [top]

[»] Breaking the law vs breaking a license agreement
by Fremar - May 14th 2001 08:33:27

In most countries, someone who would implement such a "content filter" or "content changer" is already breaking laws about freedom of speech or privacy.
I don't think anyone willing to violate the law will be stopped by a license agreement.
So that leaves us with countries where freedom of speech and privacy have little meaning. But I don't think any dictator will hesitate to violate software license agreements if he is already violating human rights.

[reply] [top]

    [»] Re: Breaking the law vs breaking a license agreement
    by andrew cooke / jara software - May 15th 2001 11:52:01

    I don't think anyone is claiming that "Mr Nasty Dictator" is not going to run some code because of licence restrictions. But in many cases, pressure might be possible - I already suggested that a Green Party in a country might be interested in enforcing compliance if some oil company (say) was using software with a "green licence".

    As for the "dictatorship" accusation - how is this any different to me refusing to work for or buy goods from companies I don't like? Or refusing to help out people that annoy me? It's *my* code - why shouldn't I have some say in who uses it? If you don't like my ethics you're always free to not use the software I release under an ethical licence. I'm not saying people should be forced to use software with a licence they don't accept!

    I don't see how me using a licence I like is any different to RMS using a licence that he likes - the GPL. Is he a little dictator too? (ok, I know the answer to that ;-)

    And finally, I don't see any problem in choosing what ethics to put in the licence. Each person who writes their own code can choose their own. Of course, this will be a horrible mess at first, but with time people might group together under a number under more popular, general licences. Alternatively, people could get together now, and discuss what they'd like...

    [reply] [top]

      [»] Re: Breaking the law vs breaking a license agreement
      by Alexander Bartolich - May 16th 2001 05:28:37


      > If you don't like my ethics
      > you're always free to not use the
      > software I release under an ethical
      > licence. I'm not saying people should
      > be forced to use software with a licence
      > they don't accept!
      The bad guys won't care what your license says and will use your stuff anyway.
      If they are smart they will probably improve your source.
      Following the spirit of open source (its supposed to make better software) they will publish their patches.

      So the real issue with your license is this:
      Will you accept work from people you don't like?

      Refusing knowledge is ignorance.

      [reply] [top]

        [»] Re: Breaking the law vs breaking a license agreement
        by andrew cooke / jara software - May 16th 2001 16:32:31

        Please re-read the first paragraph of the post you replied to.

        Thanks, Andrew

        [reply] [top]

          [»] Re: Breaking the law vs breaking a license agreement
          by Alexander Bartolich - May 17th 2001 02:53:29


          > Please re-read the first paragraph of
          > the post you replied to.
          So?

          I started from there and came to a possible scenario. My question was and still is:
          Will you accept patches from people that don't qualify for your licence?
          Will you ignore knowledge, just because it was developed by employees of Shell?

          [reply] [top]

            [»] Re: Breaking the law vs breaking a license agreement
            by Steve Lhomme - May 17th 2001 06:52:57


            > Will you accept patches from people
            > that don't qualify for your licence?
            It depends if the modifications correct bugs or add features that are made to restrict people's rights.
            Some linux kernel patches never made it into the kernel, so submiting a patch doesn't automatically imply that you'll add it.


            > Will you ignore knowledge, just
            > because it was developed by employees of
            > Shell?
            Very good question.
            I think it really is a political question. If the people responsible for a project can refuse to be helped or not by people they don't like.

            What if Microsoft submit a patch to the linux kernel ? Not only the technical part would be implied.

            Anyway I don't think the problem is about the code (which is mostly about technical matters), but about the use of the code. In this case, the coder is not implied, but a license agreement could help.

            [reply] [top]

              [»] Re: Breaking the law vs breaking a license agreement
              by Alexander Bartolich - May 17th 2001 08:10:05

              > > Will you accept patches from people that don't qualify for your licence?
              >
              > It depends if the modifications correct bugs or add features that are
              > made to restrict people's rights.

              This is a completely different issue. Rejecting a feature you don't like, whether it's for technical or philosophical reasons, is natural.
              I think that source code is speech. Rejecting somebody else arguments is natural, but refusing to talk with someone just for ideological reasons is recipy for disaster.

              > What if Microsoft submit a patch to the linux kernel ?

              So?
              A patch is a patch. You can look at it, evaluate it, strip the sender's name from it.

              > Not only the technical part would be implied.

              Just why? What if Linus went mad and included a backdoor in the kernel?
              It's not the (in)famous name that decides, but the contents.

              > Anyway I don't think the problem is about the code
              > (which is mostly about technical matters), but about the use of
              > the code. In this case, the coder is not implied, but a
              > license agreement could help.

              Free software is about sharing advancements in computer science.

              [reply] [top]

                [»] Re: Breaking the law vs breaking a license agreement
                by Steve Lhomme - May 17th 2001 09:49:11


                > I think that source code is speech.
                > Rejecting somebody else arguments is
                > natural, but refusing to talk with
                > someone just for ideological reasons is
                > recipy for disaster.
                So you're against any form of embargo and boycott ?
                I'm against embargo for a whole country, but boycott is OK.
                As someone mentioned above, this is not only a technical problem, but about human beings. You can't always hide behind the technic.

                In France during WWII, we had some people that worked for the Vichy government and applied the laws of this government. But after the war they have been judged for that, because the laws they applied were against the Human Rights.

                IMO that proves that you always have to be concerned about what you're doing and the possible consequences. When you code something and make it public, they is much more implied than just publishing the code. And it would be nice if coders (scientists in general also) would be more aware of that.


                > > Anyway I don't think the problem
                > is
                > about the code
                > > (which is mostly about technical
                > matters), but about the use of
                > > the code. In this case, the coder is
                > not
                > implied, but a
                > > license agreement could help.
                >
                > Free software is about sharing
                > advancements in computer science.
                Yes, but not only. The GPL forces people to continue working with GPL (that's not what I call being free). It has nothing to do with computer science.

                [reply] [top]

[»] Political Correctness is just another Fascism
by Alexander Bartolich - May 14th 2001 05:49:27

At the heart of all this stuff is somebody that decides what is correct and what not. Some benevolent dictator, that is.

The real funny part is that even amongst related countries of Western civilization there is little consensus on correctness.

Is an abortion clinic allowed to drive their web site with Apache? What about a women's rights group that just provides choice, not pre-selection?
What about Scientology? The Witnesses of Yehova? The Catholic Church (the inquisition probably cost more lives than all sects taken together)?
The Catholic Church of Northern Ireland?

What about rogue states? States implementing death penalty? Or a government that jeopardizes global climate just for a few percent of economic growth?

[reply] [top]

    [»] Re: Political Correctness is just another Fascism
    by Steve Lhomme - May 14th 2001 08:35:03

    When you choose to release your code with an open-source license it's for many reasons. You can choose among many of them. So why shouldn't there be licenses (new or updated) that add a "fair use" close depending on what you need/want to do. It's up to the coder ! It's not dictatorship because you're free not to use these licenses !!! The problem is that licenses usually have to be the same like the problem between using the old BSD license where you had a clause with usually the name of the author. So adding this kind of clause to existing licenses would require to update these licenses on lots of softwares (code actually). I think there should be a "fair use" version of all the popular ones. Now the problem is what to consider fair or not !!! As I said in another message, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is probably a good starting point.

    [reply] [top]

      [»] Re: Political Correctness is just another Fascism
      by damaged - May 14th 2001 09:43:25


      > When you choose to release your code
      > with an open-source license it's for
      > many reasons. You can choose among many
      > of them.
      > So why shouldn't there be licenses
      > (new or updated) that add a "fair use"
      > close depending on what you need/want to
      > do. It's up to the coder !
      >
      > It's not dictatorship because you're
      > free not to use these licenses !!!
      >
      > The problem is that licenses usually
      > have to be the same like the problem
      > between using the old BSD license where
      > you had a clause with usually the name
      > of the author. So adding this kind of
      > clause to existing licenses would
      > require to update these licenses on lots
      > of softwares (code actually). I think
      > there should be a "fair use" version of
      > all the popular ones. Now the problem is
      > what to consider fair or not !!! As I
      > said in another message, the Universal
      > Declaration of Human Rights is probably
      > a good starting point.
      Oh brother, I am amazed at littel Hitlers running around on here...

      --
      rot13; jub | terc -v oybaqr | qngr; pq ~;hamvc; gbhpu; fgevc; svatre; zbhag; tnfc; lrf; hcgvzr; hzbhag; fyrrc

      [reply] [top]

        [»] Re: Political Correctness is just another Fascism
        by Steve Lhomme - May 14th 2001 12:55:53

        I'm afraid you'll have to explain a bit more... Otherwise your comment is useless (agressive ? stupid ?).

        [reply] [top]

          [»] Re: Political Correctness is just another Fascism
          by damaged - Jun 6th 2001 12:33:14


          > I'm afraid you'll have to explain a bit
          > more... Otherwise your comment is
          > useless (agressive ? stupid ?).

          Explain?..ok here goes...I was calling them little Hitlers..this guy he was killing jewish people, he was responsible for the Holocaust...does any of this ring a bell?...is it understandable now?...if it isn't i'm afraid i lost my english->retard translator book...thats as easy as i can explain it to you.

          --
          rot13; jub | terc -v oybaqr | qngr; pq ~;hamvc; gbhpu; fgevc; svatre; zbhag; tnfc; lrf; hcgvzr; hzbhag; fyrrc

          [reply] [top]

      [»] Re: Political Correctness is just another Fascism
      by Alexander Bartolich - May 15th 2001 03:38:18


      > [...]
      > It's not dictatorship because you're
      > free not to use these licenses !!!       The problem is that you, the coder that chooses the license, forces his personal ethics onto everyone else.
      And I say it again: There is absolutely no non-trivial agreement on such ethics.
      Continental China may have clause on their Linux distribution that forbids Tibet activists to use it. Evil?
      Well, for a long time Turkey, a NATO member, forbade every use of the Curdish language.
      Saudi Arabia is perhaps the most oppressive Islamic regime on this world, yet they are an American Alley and beyond criticism.

      In Austria we have common agreement that nuclear power is deficit politics. Thousand generations will have to pay for radioactive waste that give us about 30 years of electricity. But we are just seven million people. Should we really declare ideological war on the rest of the world?

      Your suggestion means to couple computer science with other issues. Implemented in perfection this means "by using this source you agree to all my believes and swear to never do evil again".

      I think the ability to communicate with people of other cultures is in itself a value. I may despise Echolon and think low of everyone participating, but still I would enjoy a chat on technical issues regarding gcc. Having something in common is the first step in understanding each other.

      [reply] [top]

        [»] Re: Political Correctness is just another Fascism
        by andrew cooke / jara software - May 16th 2001 16:34:58


        > The problem is that you, the coder that chooses the license, forces his
        > personal ethics onto everyone else.
        I thought that was a feature, not a bug. If you don't like the ethics, don't use the code. Why should I write free software for people that are screwing up my environment?

        [reply] [top]

          [»] Re: Political Correctness is just another Fascism
          by Alexander Bartolich - May 17th 2001 03:39:24


          > Why should I write free software for people that are screwing up my environment?
          I don't know how great a programmer you are.
          For myself I know that I am standing on the shoulder of giants. My achievements are insignificant in comparison.
          Stallman, Thorvalds and Wall gave me their work with no such strings attached. Without them I would know nothing.

          Anyway, your understanding of open source is missing a crucial part: Cooperation with others. The Linux kernel was not written by a single human, but contains contributions from people all over the world.

          I read your suggestion to mean "No, I won't accept your patch, you are evil". Given the big egos of famous Coders, this can only lead to a lethal separation of the scene.

          [reply] [top]

          [»] Re: Political Correctness is just another Fascism
          by damaged - Jun 6th 2001 12:36:40


          >
          > % The problem is that you, the coder
          > that chooses the license, forces his
          > % personal ethics onto everyone
          > else.
          >
          >
          > I thought that was a feature, not a
          > bug. If you don't like the ethics,
          > don't use the code. Why should I write
          > free software for people that are
          > screwing up my environment?
          >           Not use it?...thats unrealistic what people WILL do is delete your silly humane GPL garbage, do a search replace on your code, remove your name, and release it anyways....what ya gonna do?...SUE?...hahahahaha..you people still don't get it...

          --
          rot13; jub | terc -v oybaqr | qngr; pq ~;hamvc; gbhpu; fgevc; svatre; zbhag; tnfc; lrf; hcgvzr; hzbhag; fyrrc

          [reply] [top]

        [»] Re: Political Correctness is just another Fascism
        by Steve Lhomme - May 16th 2001 16:59:02


        >
        > absolutely no non-trivial agreement on
        > such ethics.
        But the Universal Declaration of Human Rights IS not about ethics. And it's "universal" (or should be applied as such).


        > Continental China may have clause on
        > their Linux distribution that forbids
        > Tibet activists to use it. Evil?
        > Well, for a long time Turkey, a NATO
        > member, forbade every use of the Curdish
        > language.
        > Saudi Arabia is perhaps the most
        > oppressive Islamic regime on this world,
        > yet they are an American Alley and
        > beyond criticism.
        You're precisely talking about countries that heavily violates the UDHR. Why would you prevent yourself from avoiding these people (not all of them) to use a software you've created ?
        Imagine if Einstein could have forbid the use of nuclear power for weapons...

        If it's made possible, we HAVE to make it. (even if we don't need to use it).

        I really hope some lawyers at the FSF will think about it (or BSD since I prefer the BSD license as it's even more open).

        [reply] [top]

          [»] Re: Political Correctness is just another Fascism
          by Alexander Bartolich - May 17th 2001 04:35:43


          > [...]
          > You're precisely talking about countries that heavily violates the UDHR. Why would you prevent yourself from avoiding these people (not all of them) to use a software you've created
          It's not "these people". It's us. Our governments, our corporations, our society. The difference between good and evil countries is not Yes or No. It's more like the ratio of good deeds vs. bad.

          If I had to decide where to live I would choose Israel over Saudi Arabia. But certainly the human rights record of the former is magnitudes worse.


          > Imagine if Einstein could have forbid the use of nuclear power for
          weapons...

          That would have saved us from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Not from Tshernobyl. And Kyoto is about reducing the global threat of CO2, not radioactivity.


          > I really hope some lawyers at the FSF will think about it (or BSD since I
          prefer the BSD license as it's even more
          open).

          LOL!
          You don't know what you are talking about.
          You must be a Troll.

          For years the BSD folks have criticized RMS for beeing fascist, anal and covert commy.
          And you expect them to restrict their license for political reasons?

          [reply] [top]

            [»] Re: Political Correctness is just another Fascism
            by Steve Lhomme - May 17th 2001 06:39:41


            > That would have saved us from
            > Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Not from
            > Tshernobyl. And Kyoto is about reducing
            > the global threat of CO2, not
            > radioactivity.
            Does that mean that it wouldn't be worth ?


            > % I really hope some lawyers at the
            > FSF
            > will think about it (or BSD since I
            > prefer the BSD license as it's even
            > more
            > open).
            >
            >
            > LOL!
            > You don't know what you are talking
            > about.
            About licenses, you're right. I've never really taken care of them until recently.
            I like the BSD because it's more permissive, also. But I still think that a mix of both would make sense.


            > You must be a Troll.
            >
            > For years the BSD folks have
            > criticized RMS for beeing fascist, anal
            > and covert commy.
            > And you expect them to restrict their
            > license for political reasons?
            ...even if the BSD folks don't agree.

            what is a Troll ?

            [reply] [top]

[»] Human Rights? Which Rights?
by glenalec - May 14th 2001 00:09:19

The trouble with human rights is that they are themselves
politically motivated. Is there a human right to productive
employment? (I can't check - I'm living in China) I very much
doubt it bacause Human rights were drafted in capitalist
countries and a basic tennet of capitalism is to have a large pool
of unemployed to keep labor costs down.

Even Adam Smith (name?) - the father of modrn capitalist
theory - recognised that although in the interests of capitalism,
unemployment was not in the interests of society.

BTW. I live in China but am not a Comminust (neither is the
government here except in name - mercentile dictatorship
seems more accurate). The DS on HDSR stands for Democtatic
Socialist. I originate from the Australian continent (HDSR
doesn't oficially recognise national borders) but fled the region
to find work. (I noermally don't discuss politics - boring - but
my political views obviously alter my opinions on this subject so
should be noted for perspective reasons)

--
Glenn Alexander - the man with no surname and a silly hat. HDSR citizen currently residing in China

[reply] [top]

    [»] Re: Human Rights? Which Rights?
    by Steve Lhomme - May 14th 2001 02:29:26

    I don't think you can tell the Human Rights Declaration are capitalism oriented ! It's just liberty/freedom oriented. A simple thing that say that you have to respect other people and can have your own freedom. It was not created by capitalists because at that time the word didn't even exist.

    [reply] [top]

    [»] Re: Human Rights? Which Rights?
    by andrew cooke / jara software - May 14th 2001 03:17:02


    > The trouble with human rights is that
    > they are themselves
    > politically motivated. Is there a
    In the context of this discussion (software licencing) this isn't a problem. If someone felt, for example, that their code should be used only in certain countries (those that encourage full employment, for example), then they could specify that. There's no need for a global consensus on conditions, ethics, etc.

    Maybe people are so upset (I'm surprised at the strength of negative dimissals here) because they are thinking of a modified GPL with a single ethical viewpoint. Clearly that's out of the question.

    At the moment this is a new idea; as people come to understand it perhaps it will become more common for people to use ethical conditions. In time a consensus might grow - maybe several different licences would evolve, and people would select the one they felt most strongly for ("this software is licenced under the Green ethical licence" or "the Libertarian ethical licence"). A small number of accepted licences would be a good final outcome, as they would be easier to understand and more liekly to be enforced (you could imagine the Green party in a country becoming involved in ensuring compliance with the Green licence, for example)...

    [reply] [top]

      [»] Punch Cards during War... Nope
      by jerky - May 14th 2001 05:02:58

      http://inventors.about.com/science/inventors/library/weekly/aa050298.htm please note " Zuse used old movie film to store his programs and data for the Z3, instead of using paper tape or punched cards. Paper was in short supply in Germany during the war. "

      [reply] [top]

      [»] Re: Human Rights? Which Rights?
      by damaged - May 14th 2001 09:46:27


      >
      > % The trouble with human rights is
      > that
      > % they are themselves
      > % politically motivated. Is there a
      >
      >
      > In the context of this discussion
      > (software licencing) this isn't a
      > problem. If someone felt, for example,
      > that their code should be used only in
      > certain countries (those that encourage
      > full employment, for example), then they
      > could specify that. There's no need for
      > a global consensus on conditions,
      > ethics, etc.
      >
      > Maybe people are so upset (I'm
      > surprised at the strength of negative
      > dimissals here) because they are
      > thinking of a modified GPL with a single
      > ethical viewpoint. Clearly that's out
      > of the question.
      >
      > At the moment this is a new idea; as
      > people come to understand it perhaps it
      > will become more common for people to
      > use ethical conditions. In time a
      > consensus might grow - maybe several
      > different licences would evolve, and
      > people would select the one they felt
      > most strongly for ("this software
      > is licenced under the Green ethical
      > licence" or "the Libertarian
      > ethical licence"). A small number
      > of accepted licences would be a good
      > final outcome, as they would be easier
      > to understand and more liekly to be
      > enforced (you could imagine the Green
      > party in a country becoming involved in
      > ensuring compliance with the Green
      > licence, for example)...
      >
      You all still miss the simplest point, who decides what's humane or not..you?...me?...a coder?...you are just grasping for straws in an attempt to save our souls, so to speak, we don't need you telling us how you want us to behave, if you release software and I want to use it to kill 10000 people, what are you going to do if I violate your license?...sue me?....this is just retarded thinking and dogoodism, you sound like a bunch of tree hugging hippies...

      --
      rot13; jub | terc -v oybaqr | qngr; pq ~;hamvc; gbhpu; fgevc; svatre; zbhag; tnfc; lrf; hcgvzr; hzbhag; fyrrc

      [reply] [top]

[»] Bring out the dancing bears of *duh*!
by Pim van Riezen - May 13th 2001 16:27:07

Gotta love idealism. But do you realize what you are proposing? A government with a total disregard for human life, which tortures its citizens on the basis of their hair color and endorses slavery, how morally bound do you think they will feel to the "GPL Human Rights Edition"? Or do you think it's more likely that they will go ahead and use your software to build guided missiles to shoot at their population anyway?

I bet the convicted murderer would've thought twice if he could be sued by Smith & Wesson for violating the murder weapon's license conditions.

Also, you're missing another loophole: Some people use GPL software to break the GPL! Let's put an extra clause in the GPL that forbids people who break the GPL from using the GPL product.

HTH
Pi

[reply] [top]

    [»] Re: Bring out the dancing bears of *duh*!
    by Steve Lhomme - May 17th 2001 06:55:34

    So let's not have laws because they won't be 100% respected ???

    [reply] [top]

[»] all good technology has some immoral uses
by compay - May 13th 2001 04:12:26

You can't name a technology that has only good
uses. Technology enables humans to act out their
wishes in a more expedient way - and humans can
have all sorts of wishes. The minute you release
software under a license that restricts it to certain
moral uses, you incur the responsibility to explain
what is moral and what is not. Several thousand years
of philosophy and religion have not managed to
answer that question, so you're better off not diving
into the morass if all you want to do is release a
device driver.

[reply] [top]

    [»] Re: all good technology has some immoral uses
    by Steve Lhomme - May 13th 2001 06:40:43

    I completely agree with you on the subjective aspect. But the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not ! That could be a good basis for a software/code restriction use. And you could even sue some people using your code if they break the Human Rights !!! Isn't that great ???

    [reply] [top]

      [»] Re: all good technology has some immoral uses
      by Velox_Swiftfox - May 13th 2001 15:45:17


      > I completely agree with you on the
      > subjective aspect. But the Universal
      > Declaration of Human Rights is not !
      >
      > That could be a good basis for a
      > software/code restriction use. And you
      > could even sue some people using your
      > code if they break the Human Rights !!!
      > Isn't that great ???
      The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights is immensely subjective. It speaks of lofty principles but refuses to define its terms, making it a great goal to work toward but a lousy set of criteria to try to enforce.

      Example: "Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood". Well, duh! It ends up meaning
      such things as "All human beings have an equal right to bribe the court officials and be released if they have enough money", or have an equal right to worship Allah or those 5 official churches the People's Republic of China have approved, and an equal right to go to jail if they don't.

      [reply] [top]

[»] Unfair practices would not be tolerated long.
by Jason Hines - May 13th 2001 02:25:49

I'm forking from where the article mentioned the example of altering content thats passes through software with a personal (unfair) slant.

I think this is what makes the Open Source philosophy seem so perfect. Anyone is free to abuse this system, but as long as the source code is included, everything is out in the open for the community to change. If something like you described did happen, I think it would be treated the same as if Microsoft did it. The project would be reamed with a bad repuation. The difference would be that it wouldn't take very long for the word to get out.

[reply] [top]

[»] Political repression via software required by US law
by Roger Over - May 12th 2001 21:13:08

It is already required by law in the US
I hope it is not a secret here that most of those packages to "protect" children from pornagraphy also block material based upon the political and personal views of the manufacturers. Things a child can buy at any bookstore or read in any library are blocked and redirected.

So as it is already required by law for very unfreeware what is the sudden interest in it being done by freeware?

[reply] [top]

[»] Restricting Open Source Software
by Brandon Ramirez - May 12th 2001 21:02:01

Is this guy nuts?!?!

--
- Brandon Ramirez Computer Software Programmer

[reply] [top]

    [»] Re: Restricting Open Source Software
    by tallship - May 12th 2001 21:19:21


    > Is this guy nuts?!?!
    nah, we're all just smacking crock ;)

    [reply] [top]

      [»] Re: Restricting Open Source Software
      by tallship - May 12th 2001 21:20:13


      >
      > % Is this guy nuts?!?!
      >
      >
      > nah, we're all just smacking crock ;)
      er... cracking smoke.

      [reply] [top]

[»] Community comments..
by The Golden Boy - May 12th 2001 20:59:32

The author may be wrong or right, but all the comments state something like "We're just techies, we don't give a damn about freedom and human rights as long as we're given software for free and our computers are working". Indifference of technical junkies makes all the horror possible, like indifference of the whole nation made holocaust possible. One day when there will be no freedom and as a consequence no free software no one will care that YOU have no freedom like you don't care about misuse of software.

And no one will give a damn.

[reply] [top]

    [»] Re: Community comments..
    by Jason Hines - May 13th 2001 03:01:11


    > The author may be wrong or right, but
    > all the comments state something like
    > "We're just techies, we don't give
    > a damn about freedom and human rights as
    > long as we're given software for free
    > and our computers are working".
    > Indifference of technical junkies makes
    > all the horror possible, like
    > indifference of the whole nation made
    > holocaust possible. One day when there
    > will be no freedom and as a consequence
    > no free software no one will care that
    > YOU have no freedom like you don't care
    > about misuse of software.
    >
    > And no one will give a damn.
    Please don't overreact on the WRONG notions. You are making wild accusations based on technical responses on a technical related website about a very non-technical issue. Conclusions like these can't be made one way or the other.

    [reply] [top]

      [»] Re: Community comments..
      by The Golden Boy - May 13th 2001 15:38:23


      > Please don't overreact on the WRONG
      > notions. You are making wild
      > accusations based on technical responses
      > on a technical related website about a
      > very non-technical issue. Conclusions
      > like these can't be made one way or the
      > other.
      Actually, my opinion is based on my long standing experience with technical people. Definitely, NOT all of us are like that. And don't take this personally (I haven't checked what were your comments if any). And, basically, my point was that no matter if we're doing technical stuff or building a house we should remain humans. Or at least do our best to remain humans.

      [reply] [top]

        [»] Re: Community comments..
        by MrDragonfly - Jun 20th 2001 23:05:17


        >
        > % Please don't overreact on the
        > WRONG
        > % notions. You are making wild
        > % accusations based on technical
        > responses
        > % on a technical related website about
        > a
        > % very non-technical issue.
        > Conclusions
        > % like these can't be made one way or
        > the
        > % other.
        >
        >
        > Actually, my opinion is based on my
        > long standing experience with technical
        > people. Definitely, NOT all of us are
        > like that. And don't take this
        > personally (I haven't checked what were
        > your comments if any). And, basically,
        > my point was that no matter if we're
        > doing technical stuff or building a
        > house we should remain humans. Or at
        > least do our best to remain humans.
        Not just computer techies. Look at the attitude of most scientists to political arguements. One rather paranoid ( but possibly correct) friend holds that this is part of the problem of the "scientific objectivity" worldview. By teaching scientists and techies to be apolitical It becomes possible to manipulate them more easily, and through them, everybody else. I don't feel that it as deliberate as he feels, but the problem is there. The subject-object divide which allows psychopaths to see other human beings as objects to be played with. On a small scale - serial killers. On a large scale - genocide.

        Oppenheimer and his colleagues had to face these same questions when they developed the Manhattan Project.

        Open Source Software isn't necessarily going to have the same potential for creating mass destruction, but the moral and ethical problems remain.

        --
        Measure Twice...

        [reply] [top]

[»] Ahh...something just came to me
by damaged - May 12th 2001 18:17:06

"and as a member of Amnesty International, trying to promote human rights."
Thats from this guys BIO, no wonder...this from the SAME people who are pro-life and who are in favor of releasing murderers and rapists, and outlawing executions....bunch of bible-thumping do-gooders, give it up Bjorn, noone wants to see you wave your "I am holier then thou" banner.

--
rot13; jub | terc -v oybaqr | qngr; pq ~;hamvc; gbhpu; fgevc; svatre; zbhag; tnfc; lrf; hcgvzr; hzbhag; fyrrc

[reply] [top]

    [»] Re: Ahh...something just came to me
    by Jason Hines - May 13th 2001 02:57:24


    > "and as a member of Amnesty
    > International, trying to promote human
    > rights."
    > Thats from this guys BIO, no
    > wonder...this from the SAME people who
    > are pro-life and who are in favor of
    > releasing murderers and rapists, and
    > outlawing executions....bunch of
    > bible-thumping do-gooders, give it up
    > Bjorn, noone wants to see you wave your
    > "I am holier then thou"
    > banner.
    dear dear god. wtf is happening?

    [reply] [top]

[»] Voll verpeilt
by plum eye - May 12th 2001 17:58:38

Hi Björn,

daß Du ein bißchen mit einem Proxy gespielt und GPL gelesen hast, und Serienbriefe für Amnesty schreibst, bedeutet noch lange nicht, daß Du die Community mit gestelztem Gelaber langweilst.

Auch das Holocaust-Trauma und IBM tragen keinen Sinn bei.

Manipulation findet selbstverständlich ständig statt, und die IT liefert die Infrastruktur dazu.

Aber Deine Zusammenhänge lassen mich vermuten, daß DU derjenige mit Machtphantasien bist.

Drei Erfahrungen und eine dumme Folgerung.

Jochen

Bin mal gespannt, ob Du die Kritik nicht schon selber wegfilterst (vielleicht diesmal mit Visual Basic, viel Spaß) und Du Dir so selber widersprichst.

[reply] [top]

    [»] Re: Voll verpeilt
    by damaged - May 12th 2001 17:59:45


    > Hi Björn,
    >
    > daß Du ein bißchen mit
    > einem Proxy gespielt und GPL gelesen
    > hast, und Serienbriefe für Amnesty
    > schreibst, bedeutet noch lange nicht,
    > daß Du die Community mit
    > gestelztem Gelaber langweilst.
    >
    > Auch das Holocaust-Trauma und IBM
    > tragen keinen Sinn bei.
    >
    > Manipulation findet
    > selbstverständlich ständig
    > statt, und die IT liefert die
    > Infrastruktur dazu.
    >
    > Aber Deine Zusammenhänge lassen
    > mich vermuten, daß DU derjenige
    > mit Machtphantasien bist.
    >
    > Drei Erfahrungen und eine dumme
    > Folgerung.
    >
    > Jochen
    >
    > Bin mal gespannt, ob Du die Kritik
    > nicht schon selber wegfilterst
    > (vielleicht diesmal mit Visual Basic,
    > viel Spaß) und Du Dir so selber
    > widersprichst.
    HA! that's easy for YOU to say..:P

    --
    rot13; jub | terc -v oybaqr | qngr; pq ~;hamvc; gbhpu; fgevc; svatre; zbhag; tnfc; lrf; hcgvzr; hzbhag; fyrrc

    [reply] [top]

    [»] In English: Totally misorientated
    by plum eye - May 12th 2001 18:27:02

    Hi Björn, great, that you played with a proxy, read GPL and wrote serial letters for amnesty. But thats no reason to bore the comunity with elaborated BLAH. Even the trauma of the holocaust and to mention IBM's role in it does not add some meaning in your thesis. Clearly, manipulation is everytime around us, and IT is the infrastructure to do it. But your argumentation makes me feel, that YOU are the one with power fantasies. Three experiences and one dump thought. Jochen P.S.: Perhaps you are filtering the critics for your article (Now with Visual Basic, so have fun without regular expressions!)? Would be a good contradiction. P.P.S.: I hope freshmeat will filter better in the future.

    [reply] [top]

      [»] Re: In English: Totally misorientated
      by damaged - May 12th 2001 18:36:13


      > Hi Björn,
      >
      > great, that you played with a proxy,
      > read GPL and wrote serial letters for
      > amnesty. But thats no reason to bore the
      > comunity with elaborated BLAH.
      >
      > Even the trauma of the holocaust and
      > to mention IBM's role in it does not add
      > some meaning in your thesis.
      >
      > Clearly, manipulation is everytime
      > around us, and IT is the infrastructure
      > to do it.
      >
      > But your argumentation makes me feel,
      > that YOU are the one with power
      > fantasies.
      >
      > Three experiences and one dump
      > thought.
      >
      > Jochen
      >
      > P.S.: Perhaps you are filtering the
      > critics for your article (Now with
      > Visual Basic, so have fun without
      > regular expressions!)? Would be a good
      > contradiction.
      >
      > P.P.S.: I hope freshmeat will filter
      > better in the future.
      >
      Ahh..now that made sense...thank you much for the translated post :)

      --
      rot13; jub | terc -v oybaqr | qngr; pq ~;hamvc; gbhpu; fgevc; svatre; zbhag; tnfc; lrf; hcgvzr; hzbhag; fyrrc

      [reply] [top]

[»] please!
by John Meacham - May 12th 2001 17:50:57

The GPL is not a contract!
The GPL is ont a contract!

you CANNOT restrict use of a product under copyright law, the only thing you can restrict is duplication and distribution and this is what the GPL does. it is ILLEGAL to break copyright law and go against an authors wishes in terms of duplication. this has nothing to do with agreeing to anything or 'signing' the licence or being 18 or whatnot. it is straight out illegal to distribute copyrighted material without permission of the author.

A contract is an agreement between two entities which is VOLUNTARILY entered into. of course the provider of the software may not distribute the software to you unless you agree to the contract, but it is a completely seperate legal mess. for one thing in most countries you must be a certain age to enter into contracts and there are all sorts of vauge laws which govern which contracts are enforceable and which arn't.

the GPL is not a contract, it CANNOT enfore use restrictions. in fact I dont believe it should be possible to enforce use restrictions without an explicit written and SIGNED contract, click through contracts should not be enforcable. (but this is a different rant.)

sorry for the rant, but i get the feeling people don't know the difference between contract and copyright law a lot. (and it's know wonder when most commercial software comes with a combined contract restateing what is already guarenteed by copyright law (no duplication) as well as other stipulations which must be agreed to as part of a contract. the first is redundant since copyright violation is automatically illegal. and the second shouldnt be enforceable in my opinion but saddly might be at the moment.

[reply] [top]

    [»] Re: please!
    by Steve Lhomme - May 13th 2001 06:38:27

    Maybe the GPL but what about BSD ? I think GPL put too much restriction on the license and code use (so, it IS a contract for the programmer using it). And since there are some using restrictions, why not adding another one ???

    [reply] [top]

[»] Cultural differences
by andrew cooke / jara software - May 12th 2001 17:05:24

Interesting article, and I share your concerns. Addressing some of the critical points here:

- Restrictions already exist. The GPL, for example, prevents commerical use of the software (in a certain sense).

- Yes, moral decisions may be relative, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist or shouldn't be expressed. I don't see anything inconsistent, irrational or stupid in an author restricting the use of their work according to ethical considerations (again, that's what the GPL does - there's nothing special about the moral goodness of "free").

- I wrote the first version of "Pancito" (it's here on Freshmeat if you're interested) near the beginning of the most recent troubles in the occupied territories/Israel and added a rider myself (you can see it at the end of the documentation) saying "However, I ask that it is not used by Israeli citizens living in Israel". While I have no idea whether it's legally binding, I felt that simply adding it might make someone, somewhere, think about the problem, and try and understand why I would write such a thing.

[reply] [top]

    [»] Re: Cultural differences
    by damaged - May 12th 2001 17:23:08


    > Interesting article, and I share your
    > concerns. Addressing some of the
    > critical points here:
    >
    > - Restrictions already exist. The
    > GPL, for example, prevents commerical
    > use of the software (in a certain
    > sense). (That is why it is called FREE)
    > - Yes, moral decisions may be
    > relative, but that doesn't mean that
    > they don't exist or shouldn't be
    > expressed. I don't see anything
    > inconsistent, irrational or stupid in an
    > author restricting the use of their work
    > according to ethical considerations
    > (again, that's what the GPL does -
    > there's nothing special about the moral
    > goodness of "free"). (FREE does not describe morality in any way shape or form, where are you getting this crud?
    > - I wrote the first version of
    > "Pancito" (it's here on
    > Freshmeat if you're interested) near the
    > beginning of the most recent troubles in
    > the occupied territories/Israel and
    > added a rider myself (you can see it at
    > the end of the documentation) saying
    > "However, I ask that it is not used
    > by Israeli citizens living in
    > Israel". While I have no idea
    > whether it's legally binding, I felt
    > that simply adding it might make
    > someone, somewhere, think about the
    > problem, and try and understand why I
    > would write such a thing.     (UG...an obvious attempt at spamming his software...low rent man very low rent..

    --
    rot13; jub | terc -v oybaqr | qngr; pq ~;hamvc; gbhpu; fgevc; svatre; zbhag; tnfc; lrf; hcgvzr; hzbhag; fyrrc

    [reply] [top]

      [»] Re: Cultural differences
      by andrew cooke / jara software - May 12th 2001 17:26:54

      Sorry - I thought it was pretty relevant. You know of any other examples? I thought I had hit the right balance by not giving a URL - that way people can check if they want. But I guess ad-hominen attacks are easier than making a rational argument, right?

      [reply] [top]

        [»] Re: Cultural differences
        by damaged - May 12th 2001 17:30:58


        > But I guess ad-hominen attacks are
        > easier than making a rational argument,
        > right?         Funny, I was just about to reply with the exact same thing. Practice what you preach spammer.

        --
        rot13; jub | terc -v oybaqr | qngr; pq ~;hamvc; gbhpu; fgevc; svatre; zbhag; tnfc; lrf; hcgvzr; hzbhag; fyrrc

        [reply] [top]

          [»] Re: Cultural differences
          by andrew cooke / jara software - May 12th 2001 17:34:13

          So still no rational argument?

          [reply] [top]

            [»] Re: Cultural differences
            by damaged - May 12th 2001 17:35:04


            > So still no rational argument?
            >


            One cannot provide rational where there is none to begin with.

            --
            rot13; jub | terc -v oybaqr | qngr; pq ~;hamvc; gbhpu; fgevc; svatre; zbhag; tnfc; lrf; hcgvzr; hzbhag; fyrrc

            [reply] [top]

              [»] Re: Cultural differences
              by andrew cooke / jara software - May 12th 2001 17:37:36

              OK, I'll try and make it clearer. Why shouldn't someone ask that their own creation be used in accordance with their own moral values?

              [reply] [top]

                [»] Re: Cultural differences
                by damaged - May 12th 2001 17:43:31


                > OK, I'll try and make it clearer. Why
                > shouldn't someone ask that their own
                > creation be used in accordance with
                > their own moral values?
                >
                If a person creates software meant to be free, and releases it under GPL, then the creator looses control over every copy (I mean really how would one enforce individual morals upon others?), if a person creates something that might be used to go against the creators morals, then the creator should NOT release it..period, to expect people to bow down to YOUR beleifs in exchange to use your software is not only illogical but sounds alot like dictatorship, and persoanlly I think the whole thing is bunk. Think about how silly your argument is. i.e. This software falls under MPL (moral public licensing) and to use this software you must not add anything that goes against my god buddha(for example) you are not allowed to put anything in it reffering to your god unless it is buddha...........sounds silly don't it, well that is what your defending.

                --
                rot13; jub | terc -v oybaqr | qngr; pq ~;hamvc; gbhpu; fgevc; svatre; zbhag; tnfc; lrf; hcgvzr; hzbhag; fyrrc

                [reply] [top]

                  [»] Re: Cultural differences
                  by Ab Initio - May 16th 2001 03:52:21


                  > to expect people to
                  > bow down to YOUR beleifs in exchange to
                  > use your software is not only illogical
                  > but sounds alot like dictatorship,
                  To impose your concepts of use on someone else's software creation is far more dictator-like than for him to impose his concepts of use on software he created. Whether you care to acknowledge it or not, the act of creating something useful confers certain rights, both moral and legal.

                  Unless based upon prior GPL code and also presented for use by the general public, he doesn't have to make his work available at all. And that really shoots down your "excessive restrictions" argument. Most of us run our computers on the free sweat of others. We are in no position to dictate to them how their creation is to be used. If we try, they will simply refuse to create. Game over. Lights out. Entropy.

                  Ayn Rand covered this argument fairly thoroughly in "Atlas Shrugged". I would suggest you read it slowly and carefully.

                  The ethical thing to do is to obey whatever license applies to whatever piece of software you choose to use; or not to use that software at all. It's a simple concept, easy to implement with few or no "gray areas". If you don't like the EULA or the GPL or the BSD or the whatever license / set of restrictions, simply don't use the software: even if there is no known alternative program. THAT is the market force that compels changes in licensing.

                  --
                  http://www.jw-media.org/releases/010507.htm Value your right to worship. It's far from universal.

                  [reply] [top]

      [»] Re: Cultural differences
      by andrew cooke / jara software - May 12th 2001 17:42:24


      > % (again, that's what the GPL does - there's nothing special about the
      > % moral goodness of "free").
      > (FREE does not describe morality in any way shape or form, where are you
      > getting this crud?
      What I'm saying is that there is no difference between asking that software be free (the GPL) and asking that it not be used by the military, say. Whether you prefer one or the other depends on your morals. If you don't think this is a moral problem, how would you choose one or the other?

      [reply] [top]

        [»] Re: Cultural differences
        by Alexander Bartolich - May 30th 2001 10:16:53

        > What I'm saying is that there is no
        > difference between asking that software
        > be free (the GPL) and asking that it not
        > be used by the military, say.

        I want to toy around with free software.
        See how it works.
        Improve it, probably send in patches.
        Just for the fun of it.

        One important freedom is the possibility to combine source code from different projects. Either by just assembling a distribution, or mixing features. And all these funny new licenses just make this complicated. A restriction here, a legal hassle there, and all just good intensions.

        GOOD INTENSIONS MY ASS!

        Fragmentation is one of the worst things that can happen to the free software scene. Morality of usage has nothing to do with freedom of source.

        [reply] [top]

    [»] Re: Cultural differences
    by Avi Y - Mar 12th 2003 00:11:46

    boycutting and GPL
    i'm caling all , not to look/download or use
    any of your software !!! i'm sure it's not worth to look at.

    add this to your license !

    today you boycutt israelis, tomorrow you
    (or some other fool who will follow you)
    will boycutt americans, africans or anyone else.
    the GNU/GPL is about giving freedom of use,
    and programming to all. even to ones you don't agree with :)


    i could add some explanation on the israeli point of view,
    but, since i think that the GNU/GPL should leave politics outside
    i will leave this to other forums :)

    --
    avi Y

    [reply] [top]

[»] Holocaust? wtf has that got to do with OSS?
by damaged - May 12th 2001 17:02:04

"just think of IBM's alleged involvement in the holocaust"

jesus, you guys will let _anyone_ do a write-up

--
rot13; jub | terc -v oybaqr | qngr; pq ~;hamvc; gbhpu; fgevc; svatre; zbhag; tnfc; lrf; hcgvzr; hzbhag; fyrrc

[reply] [top]

[»] I fail to see the connection
by David Turner - May 12th 2001 15:06:08

I'm sorry, but I fail to see the connection between the GPL and the kind of abuse of human rights you're talking about. If a government or a large corporation wishes to censor information, they certainly have the capabilities to do so in-house. How would adding a 'be nice' term to the GPL affect all the non-GPL software they would use instead, assuming of course that they honour the terms of the license anyway?

And all that is aside from the points already made about the meaning of "free" in free software, and the practical difficulty (impossibility?) of clearly defining what you mean by 'nice' behaviour.

[reply] [top]

[»] Who let this guy in here???
by Jeff Ramsey - May 12th 2001 15:03:13

After reading this article, I think that the use of a computer while smoking CRACK should be restricted.

I mean, the point of open source is to allow your users to alter the software to do what they want / need it to do. If that is block sites, you'll have to find a way to get around that. Remember, we are not supposed to be able to watch DVDs in Linux, but we can. There is a new copyright signal in music, but ( I think it was ) Stanford U. had a crack for that moments after it was released. The best part about the GPL is that any changes to a program that is GPLed have to be GPLed too. How hard would it be to get around a GPL content filter? Just look at the source, and see how they did it.

Finally, this idea of the government using open source sw to content filter: If we had to, I'm sure we could overturn that sort of thing. I mean, I'm just as dissapointed with our government as the next guy, but we are still in control if we want to take a stand. In Washington St., where I live, we just decided to outlaw excessive taxes on vehicle tabs. My yearly car license went from like $350 per year to like $33. We can control the government if we need to. And I think we might want to get ready. But leave open source out of it....

--
Jeff Ramsey

[reply] [top]

[»] "Ethics" Are Arbitrary
by Waldo Jaquith - May 12th 2001 14:28:21

This is a step in the wrong direction, Bjorn.