Hippocratic license is not for open source software

[pearu]

The license contradicts the requirements 5 and 6 (see https://opensource.org/osd) to be used for open-source software. Hence the term "open source" should be removed from the license text.

[yawpitch]

OK, I see that the HL author's aim was to introduce the controversy with OSD clauses 5 and 6 on purpose in order to support her political agenda. Hence, the discussion held in this issue is pretty much futile.

OR to highlight the political agenda currently inherent in the OSD.

It's not futile, as it certainly does demonstrate that there are those who have accepted the OSD definition as sound and sufficient, and by extension -- whether knowingly or inadvertently -- have accepted the OSI's political position and "capture" of the definition of "open source" as valid. Some of these people will then fight on the behalf of the OSI's market desire to maintain their capture of the term as if it were their intellectual property, which it is not.

@pearu would you consider "ethical open source" software sufficient to distinguish from "open source" software, whether it be of the unethical, amoral, or merely apathetic variety?

[pearu]

No, it wouldn't suffice as it would imply that only "ethical open source" software can be ethical. There are lots of "open source" software that is ethical by nature, that is, it would be hard to imagine how one could use the software to do any harm to others.

One should also think why the adjective "open" is used in "open source": it is all about how the software is maintained and developed collaboratively with the orientation to the community. So, the "open" does not mean so much as availability but more how the software is developed. While availability is necessary for software to be open but it does not define it. The users of the open-source software are defined by the community, and not how a particular user is using it (to do harm or good). The users of H-licensed software are defined how the users use it. Hence HL software is not an "open source" software.

[rafaelcastrocouto]

@rafaelcastrocouto , no, I really meant what I wrote. Note that the content of the restriction here is not important, the important is that no restrictions are allowed.

Back to my first post here: All open source licences have some kind of restriction on how it can be used and distributed. ... https://github.com/ContributorCovenant/hippocratic-license/issues/7#issuecomment-535461735

Since not a single person presented a valid point arguing in favor of "You cannot call your code OPEN SOURCE if you don't allow it to be used to endanger, harm, or threaten" I'm gonna unwatch this thread since in my opinion it's closed. I do believe that this is a very valid discussion and I hope we are not forbidden to use the license as authored. Wish you all good luck ❤

[yawpitch]

No, it wouldn't suffice as it would imply that only "ethical open source" software can be ethical. There are lots of "open source" software that is ethical by nature, that is, it would be hard to imagine how one could use the software to do any harm to others.

One should also think why the adjective "open" is used in "open source": it is all about how the software is maintained and developed collaboratively with the orientation to the community. So, the "open" does not mean so much as availability but more how the software is developed. While availability is necessary for software to be open but it does not define it. The users of the open-source software are defined by the community, and not how a particular user is using it (to do harm or good). The users of H-licensed software are defined how the users use it. Hence HL software is not an "open source" software.

That's an awfully proscriptive way of thinking about the issue.

If we're going to use a "common meaning" definition then "open source" software is software whose source is openly -- meaning publicly -- available ... the label in no way implies that you're allowed to copy and use that software at all, merely that you can read the source in a public forum. The copyright, thus your ability to copy or use the software, naturally falls to the author(s) of the work. As the UDHR says we who write software -- the author(s) -- all enjoy a universal right to protect our moral and material interests in that copyright.

The moment we extend that common meaning definition to address matters of collaboration -- who can contribute -- and distribution -- who can use -- we are therefore into the realm of copyright licensure.

The moment you're into licensure you're into a question of how the entity receiving a copy of that source can use that source. The question is only to what degree is that entity limited by a given license.

I haven't looked at all of the approved OSI licenses in depth, but a representative sample shows that the major ones (GPL, BSD, MIT) all limit the receiving entity (the licensee) in some fashion and often, as with the GPL's copyleft, rather considerably. There is, therefore, no question that "open source" allows limitations on the licensee ... again, the question is only a matter of degree.

Now, if "open source" is a community that has accepted a singular definition of what that term means -- not really established -- and that definition is the OSD -- widely, but obviously not universally, accepted -- then any author who feels that definition doesn't address their needs is free to license their software however they want. There being no universal trademark on the term they're also entitled to call that software "open source" or any variant on it they choose.

This is where the quandary begins ... anyone who wants to use the HL, or any license they choose, and call their software "open source" or "ethical open source" or "ethically open source" or "ethical source", or what have you, and the legacy "open source" community has no established right to do anything but complain about the soft or hard fork that brings to the market, to whatever degree that fork actually arrives.

Will the resulting software not be "open source", or it will merely not be "open source per the OSD"? If the latter, that's fine, anyone can make that point and be quite correct. If the former, now you're getting into something closer to philosophy or religion than measurable fact.

Now, here's an interesting question for you @pearu; if the OSI heard the call made by the author and decided to amend those two criteria to allow precisely the restrictions on usage proposed in the HL, would all the software that was previously "open source" no longer be "open source" because the OSD was modified in a manner you don't currently agree with? What would you do if that did happen?

Words and phrases change. That's their nature. If it isn't describing a physical measurement based on a some universal constant it isn't subject to paralysis of meaning. And even with the physical constants there's always the possibility someone will propose a new, more refined name. It's up to the gestalt to decide which meaning(s) is/are primary and what it/they mean at any given point in time.

[pearu]

To answer the @yawpitch question: that would be fine by me. This answer perhaps characterizes also how I view this issue: there is a definition of "open source" software (OSD seems to be most explicit in the terms, the other definitions are mostly descriptive) and there is HL that claims to be "open source" license. Looking at the definition and the HL text, there is obvious contradiction as stated in this issue. Considering the wide acceptance of OSD and the very minimal usage of HL, the only rational solution to resolve this contradiction is to change HL. Changing OSD would also resolve the contradiction but this seems to be a highly unlikely event. However, now that I know that the HL was designed to be contradictory, there is no issue to resolve anymore as the rational solution would never be accepted anyway.

[yawpitch]

Considering the wide acceptance of OSD and the very minimal usage of HL, the only rational solution to resolve this contradiction is to change HL.

Ahh, mob rule, and at the same time a rather excellent example of why democracy is such a good precursor to tyranny.

The contradiction is obvious only if you consider "[developing / employing] systems or activities that actively and knowingly [violate human rights as per the UDHR]" a "field of endeavour". IMHO there's no involvement of Criteria 5 based on a strict reading of the HL as worded, so I'll ignore that one until a damned good lawyer speaks up to the contrary.

If you do consider that a "field of endeavour" well, then, I'd worry for your soul if I were of the religious persuasion, but moreover I'd tend to not trust your moral reasoning. That said I don't trust generally anyone's moral reasoning, so it's not like you're losing anything there.

But even accepting there's a [non-obvious] contradiction, it's a wee bit of a leap to say the only rational solution is for the upstart party seeking to amend to give way to the momentum of the established party seeking to maintain the status quo. If our species had followed that approach very reliably over the generations I'm quite certain most of us would still be farming or smithing for a feudal lord or something similar.

But you're right, this Issue is rather mooted, though I think there's some discussion that @CoralineAda might want to consider / weigh in on.

[CoralineAda]

I've been watching this conversation unfold and first off, thanks for keeping things civil.

I've been talking with a lawyer and I plan on pressing forward. I'm preparing to submit the HL to the OSI for a formal review. I don't expect a positive outcome, but at the very least we will see what kind of moral fortitude the organization has— and act, as a community, accordingly.

[yawpitch]

@CoralineAda would be particularly interesting to have that lawyer's take on Criteria 5. I really don't think it's involved, since the wording is "for systems or activities" rather than "that create systems or activities". Criteria 6 will be harder, but I think it's also the one most open to, and in need of, eventual amendment.

[nealmcb]

Consider the poor programmer trying to choose a license. I assert that one of the many beneficial aspects of traditional open source licenses is that they offer projects several good and easy license options, based on their circumstances.

I assert that there is a huge amount of legal controversy over many of the elements of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. How many people here even know that it has 30 Articles, or have read it carefully? Different countries interpret parts of of it differently, as do different lawyers.

The author of this license is trying to design it to be useful in a very wide range of curcumstances. E.g.:

Even simple choices, like limiting gender options on sign-up forms, have an impact on the well-being of our users.

So I assert that anyone who would choose to use software licensed under this Hippocratic license would be in for a world of hurt, since they would open themselves and their project up to endless lawsuits asserting that they violate this or that aspect of someone's human rights as judged by the person bringing the lawsuit. That lawsuit could come from anyone who wrote and held a copyright on the code in use, or gained rights to those copyrights. That could easily include competitors or other troublemakers.

I now see, by reading A Note from the Author, that the goal here is indeed explicitly political and actually divisive.

And as has been pointed out earlier, the OSI has already publicly clarified that this does not meet the OSD. The mere act of using the term "open source" will of course just confuse naive programmers who figure it seems like a good thing to do, despite the fact that it does not meet the widespread meaning of the term. It also leads them thereby make their code unsuitable for a wide variety of uses by programmers who wisely steer far away from the lawsuits and politics.

So this conversation does indeed seem a huge waste of time.

[yawpitch]

So this conversation does indeed seem a huge waste of time.

Certainly some parts are more of a waste of time than others.

I’ve read the UDHR end to end, and I can find little in there that’s going to be particularly controversial in any state not run by a dictator, absolute monarchy, or populist trying to be one or the other. There certainly are a few points that are worded in a rather dated manner — not surprising, given it’s 70 years old — and it’s arguably front-loaded with Western political and economic norms, but there’s little in there that is truly controversial. Since it’s a moral standard to achieve rather than a binding legal document I rather doubt there’s anything that can be accurately called a “huge” amount of legal controversy about its contents, but I’m happy to read some sources.

[nealmcb]

I don't mean to say that lots of the UDHR is controversial. But licenses are indeed legal documents, and people are liable for serious copyright violation penalties if they are out of compliance. It is not just a moral standard.

So I do mean to say that given such a wide-ranging document, and the side-ranging set of criteria and aspirations for the license, lawyers could have a field day putting a case together against typical organizations. They would just need one aspect of how any given bit of software is used, e.g. related to the production, design or distribution of a "form" with "limited gender options".

So I dare say people looking for free code (and especially anyone giving legal advice to an organization) would be well-advised to avoid making themselves more vulnerable to harassment like that.

[yawpitch]

So I do mean to say that given such a wide-ranging document, and the side-ranging set of criteria and aspirations for the license, lawyers could have a field day putting a case together against typical organizations. They would just need one aspect of how any given bit of software is used, e.g. related to the production, design or distribution of a "form" with "limited gender options".

So I dare say people looking for free code (and especially anyone giving legal advice to an organization) would be well-advised to avoid making themselves more vulnerable to harassment like that.

And I’d dare say that’s an excellent, and almost textbook, example of the slippery slope fallacy.

The “limited gender options” phrase you’ve cherry-picked ends a paragraph the thesis of which is that all technological systems are political:

Politics and software are so tangled that they cannot be reasonably separated.

That point being made does not imply that the — or even a — goal of the license is to be used as a wrecking bar to force the close-minded to open up the gender pronouns dropdown on their signup forms — though they should do so — and any dire warnings about the legal repercussions are more than likely Chicken Little predictions.

The thesis statement is correct, open sourcing a piece of software — by any definition — is a political act, and there’s no use of that software that isn’t also political in effect.

[pearu]

@jdu9 , while the suggestion is reasonable, the reasoning is weird. Would the aim of "ESF" be to fight against open source software? What is the point here?

[yawpitch]

Isn't that the whole point of this license? A critique of FOSS because it can be used by organizations that violate human rights?

I'd say that the point of this license is to call attention to the fact the FOSS licenses that currently exist allow bad actors unfettered access to the work of the author and that there's no means to restrict that ... to some (possibly many, should they stop to reflect) that's an oversight on the part of the FOSS community, an oversight that's become more important in recent years as the bad actors have gotten bigger and closer to home.

(To be fair, this license won't stop China or North Korea from using software licensed under the Hippocratic License. What actually needs to be done is granting the UN more power in enforcing the UDHR, but yeah... that will never happen as long as they have nuclear weapons at their disposal...)

To be fair the Hippocratic License wasn't written in response to the actions of either North Korea or China ... it's aimed at regimes that value copyright and intellectual property rights -- generally -- above human ones.

[yawpitch]

All I'm saying is don't try to fit under the open source umbrella if you're contradicting general consensus. Your chances of success would be significantly higher if you founded your own "Ethical Software Foundation" (ESF) and through that build a foundation against open source and free software.

No one is "against" open source and free software, they're against the idea that the umbrella must allow for -- and therefore de facto encourage -- the usage of that software in what are, lets be frank, crimes against humanity. Only if the general consensus is that radically -- and irresponsibly and negligently -- libertarian does "against" need to come into play.

[ghost]

No one is "against" open source and free software

In fact, this license does not only contradict the OSD but also Freedom 0 of the Free Software Definition (FSD). If anybody still hopes that this is not the case, please take a look at this text by RMS which is unambiguous.

I urge you to to drop leading the FLOSS community into the dark by claiming that a fundamental principle of both the OSD and the FSD can and must be changed. It can't and it must not. Doing and even trying do to so will perhaps help the proponents to state their point but it will certainly divide und ultimately destroy the FLOSS community.

Do you want this to happen? I don't.

[yawpitch]

First, that’s a slippery slope fallacy.

Second, Stallman’s ideas — including, tangentially but inseparably, the ones about consent — are not directly engaged here; the Hippocrates License is not, and does not claim to be, “free software”, nor does usage of the term “open source” EVER engage the FSF, since it openly repudiates that term at every possible opportunity.

Nevertheless, if FOSS definitionally means consent to evil — I would argue that only the FSF’s view fully abandons moral responsibility for one’s creations — then there’s nothing dark about its destruction. On Oct 6, 2019, 18:17 +0100, Lutz Horn notifications@github.com, wrote:

No one is "against" open source and free software In fact, this license does not only contradict the OSD but also Freedom 0 of the Free Software Definition (FSD). If anybody still hopes that this is not the case, please take a look at this text by RMS which is unambiguous. I urge you to to drop leading the FLOSS community into the dark by claiming that a fundamental principle of both the OSD and the FSD can and must be changed. It can't and it must not. Doing and even trying do to so will perhaps help the proponents to state their point but it will certainly divide und ultimately destroy the FLOSS community. Do you want this to happen? I don't. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[ghost]

I've been talking with a lawyer and I plan on pressing forward. I'm preparing to submit the HL to the OSI for a formal review. I don't expect a positive outcome, but at the very least we will see what kind of moral fortitude the organization has— and act, as a community, accordingly.

I see that you have started The Ethical Source Movement. It sounds quite combative (emphasis mine):

The organizations that claim ownership of the definition of free and open source software have ignored their obligations to the community and failed to address our growing concerns. The time has come to reclaim authority over what it means to develop software in the open while not compromising our needs and ideals as creators.

In the light of this development: Do you still work on getting this license approved by the OSD? If not, will you remove the mention of Open Source on https://firstdonoharm.dev/ and replace it with "Ethical Source"?

[CoralineAda]

Yes, I'm moving forward on multiple fronts.

[yawpitch]

In the light of this development: Do you still work on getting this license approved by the OSD? If not, will you remove the mention of Open Source on https://firstdonoharm.dev/ and replace it with "Ethical Source"?

Even in the case the OSI rejects the application, or the application is revoked, there is still no reason to remove the term “open source”, other than as a courtesy to the OSI. Again, the OSI does not own (or claim) any form of intellectual property rights on the term, and their sole interest in protecting a mark they could not secure is to protect their brand’s value in the market. You may agree with that goal, but not acceding to their request on well-established ethical grounds (which would include not allowing violation of the UDHR) shouldn’t be controversial, even when that request arrives by proxy.

[strypey]

The OSI does not own a trademark on the term "open source", and so all they can do is make that request

True. But there's a practical reason they make such requests and that the open source movement tends to defer to them:

"If you call it "Open Source" without using an approved license, you will confuse people. This is not merely a theoretical concern — we have seen this confusion happen in the past, and it's part of the reason we have a formal license approval process. See also our page on license proliferation for why this is a problem." https://opensource.org/faq#avoid-unapproved-licenses

In a nutshell, you can call a pig a nightingale, but that won't make it sing. The concept of open source was defined as a restatement of the 'four freedoms' of Free Software, and the boundaries of its meaning have been clearly established over 20 years of software development and activism. If you think open source is no longer fit for purpose, you are free to propose a new concept and practice, under a new name. It serves nobody to try to fudge these two things together as it they were one thing when they are clearly not.

FWIW the possibility of using copyright licenses on software to enforce other ethical criteria was seriously considered at the founding of the software freedom movement, and rejected as impractical, because it creates more negative unintended consequences than it prevents: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.html

TL;DR Software licenses depend on copyright law. There's no point trying to use copyright law to prevent activities that are addressed by other laws. Trying to use copyright licenses to prevent unethical activities by states (eg use of software by ICE) is unlikely to work given that the licenses depend on these same states to enforce copyright law. Licenses that impose arbitrary restrictions fragment the software commons along partisan lines. Using software license to control what people can and can't do with their computer is as unjust as users being able to control what software developers can and can't write.

I would add that the most likely results of developers restricting the use of open source software (beyond the minimal restrictions inherent in the concept) are a) governments and corporations moving funding from independent development of free software to tightly controlled development of proprietary software, and b) continuing to use the open source software internally without publicly admitting it, so as well as the restrictions not achieving their goal, tech people working with that software in those organizations will be prevented from honouring copyleft clauses or contributing code upstream.

EDIT: for clarity

[nealmcb]

Thank you, @strypey - your reference to the article on unintended consequences of limiting the use of software is well worth the read. E.g.

A condition against torture would not work, because enforcement of any free software license is done through the state. A state that wants to carry out torture will ignore the license.

software licenses are based on copyright law, and trying to impose usage conditions that way is stretching what copyright law permits, stretching it in a dangerous way. Would you like books to carry license conditions about how you can use the information in them?

If we accepted programs with usage restrictions as part of a free operating system such as GNU, people would come up with lots of different usage restrictions.... Allowing any usage restrictions whatsoever in free software would mainly push users towards nonfree software.

Imagine selling pens with conditions about what you can write with them.

[yawpitch]

Imagine selling pens with conditions about what you can write with them.

The day your pen can be used, directly and absent modification, to put a Hellfire on target is the day you must imagine the previously unimaginable. However that quote is a perfect example of why Richard Stallman is not now, and never has been, a great legal or moral philosopher.

A pen isn't an expressive work that has an author; it's an implement that has a utility. It cannot be protected by copyright, hence any allegorical use of it in this context is both telling and absurd.

Your source code is protected, usually solely, by copyright law ... that's because your source code is, by definition, an utterance of an expressive, authorial work. You, as the author, own the singular right to license the right to copy your work out to others. You, then, also enjoy the right to restrict its use however you like. If you choose to open that work up to the commons you're potentially doing a good, but if you do so in a manner that explicitly empowers evil then are your hands free of that evil?

Stallman's ideas only work if your answer to that question is a resounding "Yes!" ... I, for one, am deeply uncomfortable with the notion that anyone would be so ready to disclaim personal responsibility for their pen immediately after it's been used to stab out the eyes of a hundred thousand children for the crime of having been born the wrong side of an imaginary line.

Plenty of other copyright licensing schemes exist that have usage restrictions and have not caused the slippery slope to proprietary-only ecosystems described above; for instance the Creative Commons licenses all have optional NonCommercial and ShareAlike clauses. The issue of enforceability is, and always has been, a red herring; the point is to restrain bad actors who are psychotic by nature and who fear financial consequences more greatly than they fear moral or social ones. The copyleft clauses of the GPL are also unenforceable against anyone not subject to copyright law, their point then is restricted to those who are subject to such law ... which means they'd be just as subject to usage limitations as well. Arguments against usage limitations on those narrow grounds are also arguments against having any license at all, after all.

[strypey]

I share your frustrations that the world is full of powerful entities using their resources to hurt people and do other bad things. I've spent most of my life living on the bones of my arse so I can work fulltime as an unpaid activist, trying to bring attention to these problems and find ways to solve them. I say that to make it clear that our disagreement is not about the values behind the Hippocratic License (and other proprietary social engineering licenses), but about whether its methods are likely to be effective, and what the unintended consequences might be.

On 2019-10-13 13:16, Michael Morehouse wrote:

A pen isn't an expressive work that has an author; it's an implement that has a utility. It cannot be protected by copyright, hence any allegorical use of it in this context is both telling and absurd.

The software freedom movement has always argued that software, as part of a functioning computer, is an implement that has a utility. As such, it's inclusion in the scope of copyright law - a situation brought about by the lobbying of Bill Gates and his ilk - was a mistake and an injustice. In order to hedge against the effects of that mistake, until such time as it can be corrected in law, Stallman came up with the hack of using copyright licenses to cancel out the copyright restrictions on software. Copyleft was a further hack, extending that canceling out of copyright restrictions onto derivative versions of software covered by those licenses.

It is in this context, that Stallman offers his analogy about restrictions on the use of pens.

If you choose to open that work up to the commons you're potentially doing a good, but if you do so in a manner that explicitly empowers evil then are your hands free of that evil?

As Stallman, Perens, and many others who have decades of experience with the practicalities of free code licensing have pointed out, you can either open up software to the commons (cancelling the injustice of software copyright with your choice of license), or you can control how that software can and can't be used. You can't do both. If a developers believes that the benefits of stopping Bad Actors using their software are greater than the benefits of sharing it with the commons, then a proprietary license like the HL is an option available to them. But enclosing your software as "intellectual property" to prevent its misuses is not opening it up to the commons, and it's disingenuous to pretend that it is.

You can't say "anyone who gets thirsty can drink from the village well", and "people who do things I disapprove of can't drink from the village well" without contradicting yourself. It's one, or the other. Pick one.

I, for one, am deeply uncomfortable with the notion that anyone would be so ready to disclaim personal responsibility for their pen immediately after it's been used to stab out the eyes of a hundred thousand children

I'm pretty sure ICE use pens. If so, those pens are just as complicit in the administration of ICE as the software you are concerned about. I doubt that everyone who works in the pen industry is totally cool with that, but you don't see them trying to prevent that by using contact law to put licensing conditions of the use of pens. Because it would be an unenforceable legal nonsense.

the Creative Commons licenses all have optional NonCommercial and ShareAlike clauses.

I've been a CreativeCommons activist since the early 2000s and was one of the co-founders of the NZ jurisdiction porting project, so there's a lot I could say about the practical differences between licensing software and artworks (there's a reason CC recommends free code licenses for software, not theirs, and not shareware ones with commercial use and reverse engineering restrictions). But I'll stick to the point that's most relevant here; whatever the arguments in favour of the 'No Commercial Use' and 'No Derivatives' restrictions, its a fact that they fragment the CC commons into a number of incompatible pools.

These clauses are viral, in precisely the way the GPL used to be accused of being viral. If you include a single item with these restrictions in a collaborative work like Wikipedia or OpenStreetMap, then the use and distribution of that whole work becomes restricted in that way, even if every other item making up that work is under a free culture license like CC BY or CC BY-SA, or in the Public Domain. The only way to use the freedoms not restricted by the other licenses, is to remove the restrictive item, forking the project.

Similarly, if a GNU/Linux distribution like Debian, included a single piece of code under a social engineering license like the HL (or the Commons Clause, Fair Source, PPL, Vaccine License, or Anti-996), then the distribution and use of the whole of Debian becomes constrained by the conditions imposed in that license. Even though every other piece of software in Debian is still under free licenses.

As with collections of CC works, one option is to fork the project and remove the restrictive item. But with software, unlike (most) artwork, the four freedoms can be restored simply by forking the last version of the now-restricted code that was released under a free license, and maintaining it under the old license. If the old license wasn't a copyleft license, they can choose whatever license they like. But if they don't choose an FSF or OSI approved license that respects the four freedoms, someone else will.

So the only effect that the adoption of social engineering licenses is likely to have is that almost nobody will want to use the software licensed under it. It will be immediately dropped from Debian, Fedora, and their derivatives, and most other OS distributions, and replaced with a free fork. Any free code project that depends on it will fork it, or switch to different dependencies. Software freedom activists will not use software under those licenses for both philosophical and practical reasons. Businesses and NGOs will not use it because of the legal headaches those licenses create, neither will they allow software under those licenses to be written on company time.

New projects licensed under social engineering licenses will simply never be adopted by most people. If that software is really needed or wanted, someone will write or finance replacements under free licenses, just as free code has always been written to replace proprietary software people need or want.

The copyleft clauses of the GPL are also unenforceable against anyone not subject to copyright law

True. But their object is not to prevent government departments using software to do undefined Bad Things. That's your goal. The purpose of copyleft is to prevent legal persons using copyright to restrict people's freedoms when they use computers. The GPL is enforceable on entities that are subject to copyright law, and has been enforced successfully in court. The existence of that stick means that most copyleft non-compliance can be addressed by distributing sufficient carrots, education, negotiation etc.

The HL, in constrast, is so vague that it's like you're trying to pass a law against being mean to puppies. I'm a vegan, I'm right with you on the puppies thing. But without a precise, measurable, legal definition of "mean" and "puppies", there's no way to know when the law has been broken, so there's no way it can be enforced, and nobody will waste their time trying. So there's no stick, and no reason for any Bad Actor to take the restrictions seriously. Just the aforementioned reasons for Good Actors to avoid software encumbered with those restrictions, and a simple if slightly inconvenient means of doing so (forking).

In summary, I hope the futility of the social engineering license approach becomes clear sooner, rather than later, so the groundswell building around promoted them can be redirected into the many more effective forms of activism (https://globalfree.wordpress.com/2012/02/05/198-methods/), which the software freedom movement can enthusiastically support you in. Except for the right wingers, but thanks to their free licenses you can use their software anyway, so ...

[yawpitch]

[...] about whether its methods are likely to be effective, and what the unintended consequences might be.

I've already stated that arguments about enforceability (effectiveness by another name) are really rather moot. The consequences you point to are, for the most part, just another restatement of the slippery slope fallacy ... they may come to pass, in their entirety they very likely will not. At this point the primary purpose of this license is to engender discussion... it's been effective at that.

The software freedom movement has always argued that software [...] is an implement that has a utility. As such, it's inclusion in the scope of copyright law [...] was a mistake and an injustice [... it] is in this context, that Stallman offers his analogy about restrictions on the use of pens.

Arguably the binary is a utility, the source code very obviously is not. But, injustice or not, the de facto and de jure status quo is that software as written is not a pen ... the context elucidates why a bad analogy was used, but it doesn't make it a better analogy.

As [... those with ...] decades of experience with the practicalities of free code licensing have pointed out, you can either open up software to the commons (cancelling the injustice of software copyright with your choice of license), or you can control how that software can and can't be used. You can't do both.

Seems to me that very well may be confirmation bias leading to an untested assumption. It also assumes that bad actors are a member of the commons.

You can't say "anyone who gets thirsty can drink from the village well", and "people who do things I disapprove of can't drink from the village well" without contradicting yourself. It's one, or the other. Pick one.

You're misstating the nature of what a license does ... even the most free license says "anyone who gets thirsty can drink from MY well PROVIDED they adhere to the terms of this license" ... the copyright is yours, it remains yours ... Hell, it's untested if you even can disclaim it in a manner that doesn't leave you with it, even if the practical reality is you could never claw it back. The well is yours ... the water in it is yours ... you can open it up to the commons as much as you'd like, but it doesn't become the commons until your copyright lapses well after your death. The argument is over whether or not you should be able to append "provided you don't use it to poison everyone else, me included" to the end.

I'm pretty sure ICE use pens [...] because it would be an unenforceable legal nonsense.

It certainly would be ... but we're still not talking about pens.

Similarly, if a GNU/Linux distribution like Debian, included a single piece of code under a social engineering license like the HL [...] then the distribution and use of the whole of Debian becomes constrained by the conditions imposed in that license.

I see no reason why that's necessarily a bad thing. For instance if the condition was, simply, "you can use this for any purpose legal within the jurisdiction in which it's used" then the only people constrained are those who wish to engage in the illegal ... since they're already not allowed to do the illegal, no additional constraint has been heaped upon them.

Businesses and NGOs will not use it because of the legal headaches those licenses create, neither will they allow software under those licenses to be written on company time.

Already eminently true of the GPL and all other copyleft licenses at a heck of a lot of companies I've worked for. They'd much rather admit a restriction on violating the UDHR than admit a license that removes their copyright.

True. But their object is not to prevent government departments using software to do undefined Bad Things. That's your goal.

Actually no, it's not my goal ... I didn't write the HL or have any hand in it. I'm just an interested observer. I've realized in the last few years that, perhaps, it's much better to release certain types of software I've been party to under a non-OSD license -- or never release it at all -- specifically because it could be weaponized. The OSI -- and even more so the FSF -- have been fatally naive about the moral consequences of not including some avenue of authorial restrictions on use. I very much doubt that the HL is a workable answer for that, but I remain interested.

The GPL is enforceable on entities that are subject to copyright law, and has been enforced successfully in court. The existence of that stick means that most copyleft non-compliance can be addressed by distributing sufficient carrots, education, negotiation etc.

There's no reason other than an adopted / inherited bias that the same could not be true of a license with well-constructed usage restrictions ... a bias adopted / inherited from Founding Fathers with increasingly unreliable moral compasses.

The HL, in constrast, is so vague that [...] there's no way it can be enforced, and nobody will waste their time trying.

The UDHR isn't all that vague. Also copyright law isn't usually "enforced"; someone whose license has been breached sues under tort and contract law to correct that breach. You've just acknowledge that in the section above, since the GPL spent money waving that carrot about.

[E]xcept for the right wingers, but thanks to their free licenses you can use their software anyway, so ...

So far it seems to me they've been the majority beneficiary of there not being a usage restriction on violations of the UDHR -- or, you know, basic decency -- the influence of Libertarian "thinkers" on Open Source has directly enabled that travesty. As they achieve office it will enable the mass slaughter those sort of political underpinnings inevitably lead to, and software systems written by lefties with ill-conceived notions of the commons will end up murdering the authors.

Now I'll freely admit that at that point the license won't stop the ovens anyway ... my hope is only that bringing at least the consideration of the unintended consequences of releasing software as Open Source -- as currently defined -- into the minds of the modern impressionable might do something to deflect the onrushing wave of the modern deplorable.

[strypey]

Again, there's a lot I could say about your last comment, but most of the matters you cover were dealt with in either Stallman's piece, or Peren's pieces on the HL and "ethical licenses", and I believe I've already addressed the rest in previous comments. So let's focus in on the topic of this issue discussion.

my hope is only that bringing at least the consideration of the unintended consequences of releasing software as Open Source -- as currently defined

In other words, you recognize that the HL (and the other social engineering licenses) are not open source licenses "as currently defined", which means people need to stop calling them open source licenses, unless and until a new definition is formally proposed and accepted by a rough consensus of the open source movement. You are free to argue that dogs are preferable to cats, you might even be right, but it really isn't useful to argue that point by claiming that dogs are actually a better kind of cat.

At this point the primary purpose of this license is to engender discussion... it's been effective at that.

On this, we agree. Every few years or so, a new generation of hackers joins the software freedom movement, thinking that the best way to warm up the house is to burn the furniture, and wondering why the greyhairs never thought of something so obvious. Sooner or later, through enough discussions like this, the newbies grok the very good reasons why the greyhairs rejected setting the furniture on fire as a strategy, and decided to do something else. Thanks for the discussion :)

[strypey]

Oh and one other thing ...

@yawpitch

The consequences you point to are, for the most part, just another restatement of the slippery slope fallacy ... they may come to pass, in their entirety they very likely will not.

It's not likely that software placed under a proprietary license like the HL would not be included in the standard Debian release, it is a certainty. The day a new version of a package was changed to such a license, the package would either be moved to the non-free repository, or forked and the free version packaged in Debian in its place. Not only do I know that as a matter of fact, I'm willing to put money on it, let's say $1000. Any takers?

[yawpitch]

Again, there's a lot I could say about your last comment, but most of the matters you cover were dealt with in either Stallman's piece, or Peren's pieces on the HL and "ethical licenses", and I believe I've already addressed the rest in previous comments. So let's focus in on the topic of this issue discussion.

They weren't "dealt with" ... you accept your high priests word as dogma, I don't. I do believe their arguments hold more or less true from inside the silo, though.

In other words, you recognize that the HL (and the other social engineering licenses) are not open source licenses "as currently defined", which means people need to stop calling them open source licenses, unless and until a new definition is formally proposed and accepted by a rough consensus of the open source movement.

Definitions evolve... as you'll note from my several points above I don't believe the OSI's definition is either universal or canonical -- like all religions it only constitutes dogma to the dogmatic -- nor do I believe they hold either the right or the ability to keep that definition fixed ad infinitum. As with all schisms -- if this goes that far -- we might both be calling our views "open source" in the future with equal, though exclusive, conviction.

You are free to argue that dogs are preferable to cats, you might even be right, but it really isn't useful to argue that point by claiming that dogs are actually a better kind of cat.

Actually I'm arguing that a dog with a responsible owner is less dangerous than a dog with an irresponsible one. More accurately I'm arguing that dogs capable of evolving into better (or at least different) dogs without your permission having to be sought. We're not talking anywhere near even speciation ... we're definitely not talking family-level change.

On this, we agree. Every few years or so, a new generation of hackers joins the software freedom movement, thinking that the best way to warm up the house is to burn the furniture, and wondering why the greyhairs never thought of something so obvious. Sooner or later, through enough discussions like this, the newbies grok the very good reasons why the greyhairs rejected setting the furniture on fire as a strategy, and decided to do something else. Thanks for the discussion :)

I dare say I've probably got a few more grey hairs than average around here ... I'm only slightly younger than your saints. And I've been ruminating on this particular issue for a long, long time ... I disagree, after much of that time, with some of the more "Libertarian" underpinnings of FOSS, especially in light of what happens when madmen get elected into positions never previously held by madmen, and also as the advent of computing has revealed itself, more and more, to be a possible extinction level event; I disagree with the notion that software can't be freely distributed and freely used within virtuous communities without excluding those without those communities. I'm not certain the best mechanism by which to do that, so I'm interested in this attempt, even though I'm pretty certain it's not going to achieve full schismatic velocity.

What does interest me is the amount of pushback and the way in which those pushing back have accepted a distributed for-profit authoritarianism that is fascinating, if a little terrifying in its long term implications.

[yawpitch]

It's not likely that software placed under a proprietary license like the HL would not be included in the standard Debian release, it is a certainty.

I'm honestly not certain why I should care what does, or does not, make it into the standard Debian release.

[strypey]

Michael Morehouse:

I'm honestly not certain why I should care what does, or does not, make it into the standard Debian release.

So you're conceding that one. OK. I'll expand the bet and see if that increases your confidence that my claim about software under these licenses being dropped like a hot potato is a "slippery slope" fallacy. I'll wager $1000 that any package that has its license changed to a proprietary social engineering license like the HL will be immediately dropped from all existing GNU/Linux and BSD distributions, and either forked so a free version can continue to be included, or moved to whatever that distro's equivalent of a "nonfree" repository is. Any takers?

Why does this matter? Because it's a way to measure the consensus on whether software covered by these licenses is "open source" or not. Distros that continue to distribute it under the social engineering license are effectively voting that it is open source. I'm wagering the only way a GNU/Linux or BSD distribution will distribute software under social engineering licenses is if new distros are set up by the people promoting such licenses. If this happens, and I doubt the people showboating about these vanity licenses are up for that kind of serious work, nobody will use those distros except for themselves, which would render the whole excercise rather pointless.

Your patronizing comments about guru worship contributes nothing to the discussion. Note that I didn't say "open source = x because the gurus say so". I pointed out that that the majority of the libre software movement(s) has always found consensus on the definition boundaries summed up by the articles I referenced. That's been remarkably consistent despite significant factional differences over terminology, pro vs. anti business attitudes, attitudes towards Stallman and other notable movement figures, and many, many other differences you'd expect within such a diverse movement. Expecting that to change because the US elected a TV clown as its head of state (again, remember Reagan) is so US-centric it boggles the mind.

[yawpitch]

So you're conceding that one.

No point conceded; I simply do not care what does, or does not, get incorporated into the Debian standard release. More broadly I don't particularly care what gets incorporated into "GNU/Linux" or BSD distributions.

I'm also not interested in wagering on the outcome of the slippery slope, I was merely identifying the litany of consequences you predict / fear -- consequences that as originally stated went beyond mere inclusion in OS distributions -- as an example of the slippery slope fallacy. Making a bet on the fallacy being true doesn't make it any less a fallacy ... even if it turns out in some future that your predictions were correct in every particular you'd still have been using fallacious reasoning now.

If this happens, and I doubt the people showboating about these vanity licenses are up for that kind of serious work, nobody will use those distros except for themselves, which would render the whole excercise rather pointless.

Ignoring the meaningless ad hominem chaff the pointlessness of any political exercise rather depends on the relative size of "themselves" and "nobody" after that exercise has concluded ... you're assuming the outcome that supports your theses, AKA begging the question.

Your patronizing comments about guru worship contributes nothing to the discussion. Note that I didn't say "open source = x because the gurus say so". I pointed out that that the majority of the libre software movement(s) has always found consensus on the definition boundaries summed up by the articles I referenced.

They're not patronizing, they're just another way of highlighting -- hopefully to your own benefit -- your substantial deference to authority bias. Those articles are all one-sided statements of the authors own conclusions and you're throwing them about as if they represent inviolable truth -- neither movable nor subject to the whims of consensus -- rather than a political position with its own inherent -- and quite possibly wrong -- biases. In addition to that the notion that the consensus of the "majority of the libre software movement(s)" constitutes another unmovable "fact" is a statement-from-groupthink.

Expecting that to change because the US elected a TV clown as its head of state (again, remember Reagan) is so US-centric it boggles the mind.

I'm not in the US, nor was I speaking solely of the US ... though the US has done a pretty good job of highlighting the concern. My concern about using FOSS as the initial and default license of any novel piece of software started in the days of Little Bush, grew substantially under Obama, and is now clanging like a klaxon under Trump. Developments throughout Europe, as well as Brazil, India, Indonesia, and the Philippines have all raised the same alarm. Hence my interest here, though ... again ... I'm quite certain a software license isn't going to stop that train. My worry is that, much like SMTP and HTTP were initially created by decent engineers who were also terrible moral philosophers and students of human nature, the movements/religion you've delegated personal consideration to should have considered that the primary de facto use case of FOSS, taken over time, might well be the manipulation, subjugation, and elimination of individual will to the financial gain of the extreme minority.

[Aspie96]

So, one of the common factors of these definitions is that the open-source software is made freely available [merriam-webster, lexico]. Hippocratic license is non-free as it exposes restrictions to availability to certain subjects. The definition of businessdictionary uses "free of charge" and restrictions for "resale" but even here the availability is the key factor.

I should mention, both of those definitions are plain wrong when used to talk about open source software. That has a precise meaning, proposed by OSI (the ones who created the concept in the first place). It may be described in dictionaries because, being common misconceptions, they technically do apply, but only in a strictly descriptive sense and they remain misconceptions. Also note that availability technically has very little to do with open source.

[yawpitch]

proposed by OSI (the ones who created the concept in the first place)

The OSI did not originate the concept of free software, and arguably had little to do with the concept of open source either, save for adopting that label upon the OSI's foundation. They've certainly promoted the concept and had a large thumb on the scale of its meaning, but it's not at all accurate to portray FOSS as their wholesale invention.

[Aspie96]

The OSI did not originate the concept of free software

I was talking about the concept of open source, not free software.

and arguably had little to do with the concept of open source either, save for adopting that label upon the OSI's foundation.

That is not something that you can "save". That is literally what popularized and defined the term. They may have not created the expression (Christine Peterson did), but they gave it a meaning.

OSI gave the definition of "open source" to the open source community and, thus, it absolutely did originate the idea.

FOSS as their wholesale invention.

FOSS is another thing. A FOSS license (or FLOSS) is both free and open source. Some licenses are one but not the other and OSI cannot make a non-free license FLOSS even if they wish.

[yawpitch]

That is not something that you can "save". That is literally what popularized and defined the term. They may have not created the expression (Christine Peterson did), but they gave it a meaning.

They didn't create the concept (people had been making source code available for decades), they didn't originate the label (Netscape used the term "open software" in the announcement that directly led to the vote to adopt Christine Peterson's "open source", which itself preceded the OSI's existence), and they didn't popularize the idea (it was already popular, it was the announcement by a major player that they were adopting the model that made it seem likely to become more popular) ... all they've done is promote it and, via their definition, try to hold on to a proprietary interest in it.

OSI gave the definition of "open source" to the open source community and, thus, it absolutely did originate the idea.

It gave the label, certainly ... and the definition helped to promulgate it, but Linux was already licensed in a de facto Free and Open Source manner as early as '92, roughly six years before the OSI was founded. Again, the idea was well known. Sure, it was only "open software" at that point, not "open source", but that's moot. The OSI codified and applied a back-definition onto an existing system that only lacked a formal definition that was comfortable to corporatists.

FOSS is another thing. A FOSS license (or FLOSS) is both free and open source.

FOSS is, indeed, an umbrella term for software that is both Free and Open Source, but by your logic nothing could possibly have been the latter prior to early 1998, so I suppose you believe that nothing could be FOSS before that date, and thus that the OSI originated the concept of FOSS as well. Nevertheless quite a lot of software was both free and the source was open, years before that. Given that the GNU GPL V2 is an Open Source license per the OSI, even though it predates their very existence by 9 years, we can put paid to the rather odd notion that they somehow invented what was already in place before they existed.

[Aspie96]

They didn't create the concept

They did. What they didn't create is the idea of sharing code. What they did create is the concept and definition of open source software. That didn't exist before. If you disagree with software being open source, there is no reason why you would want this license to be called open source.

Netscape used the term "open software"

Not the same thing.

led to the vote to adopt Christine Peterson's "open source", which itself preceded the OSI's existence

It preceded, but the OSI has played a key role. While it is true that Peterson said the words "open source software" (or so the OSI says), she didn't provide a comprehensive definition, nor did she create any movement.

But, more importantly, she didn't affect the world so that the term would be used. OSI started the Open Source movement and the community related to it. Without OSI, one person would have once said open source software, but the expression wouldn't be widely used and, thus, it would not be part of language. For this reasons, even though OSI didn't say the words "open source" before everybody else, they absolutely got to define it.

If we applied the standard of who's the first to say a word in order to decide who defines it, we are in trouble. When you decide the name for a company, do you have the instruments to ensure nobody has every said or written that word before? The merit is in pairing a sequence of letters ("open source") with a recognized idea (that proposed by OSI), as they did. If somebody happens to have said "open source" before it had an actual meaning, that is besides the point. Even if you disagree with the Open Source Initiative, you shouldn't try to destroy the work they have done in defining an idea (defining as in attaching a meaning to a sequence of letters). Make your own.

If what you are saying is that they simply gave a label to something that already existed, I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH YOU. So let's not steal that lable from them. Let's not change definitions so that they have a different meaning (thus making texts not back-compatible and creating confusion). Let's make new terms instead. I am not trying to say I absolutely love OSI and think it is the best. Just that they gave "open source" a meaning and the meaning is strictly related with them. The fact that it was not called "open source" is the absolute focal point in this discussion, not an irrelevant one. It is the foundation of everything that I am saying and to why the discussion has been created by the OP. It has nothing to do with wether we disagree with the license or not, nor with wether we like OSI. It has absolutely everything to do with the sentence "open source".

If you think this is simply a matter of semantics, that's because it absolutely is.

you believe that nothing could be FOSS before that date, and thus that the OSI originated the concept of FOSS as well.

The following two things, only one of which is true, are different:

• The concept of "open source" (and FOSS) didn't exist: True.
• Software previous to that wasn't FOSS: False.

The reason the second one is false is that, although a definition wasn't given, licenses that were later defined to be Open Source already did. We can, therefore, now, call them FOSS.

As an example, autism wasn't always defined. In fact, it has been defined relatively ricently (compared to other things). But autistic people absolutely did exist. And they were so according to today's definition. Another example: animals had tails even before we called them "tails". But we, humans, absolutely DID invent the concept of "tail".

Also, if you, for whatever reason, care about the opinion of Peterson on Open Source, even though what I had said previously, I invite you to read the following:

https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source-software

As you can see:

• She created the term as an alternative to free software. Indeed, they are very smilar and Free Software has freedom 0. Thus, you can say that open source software is meant to grant that as well.
• She links to the definition from OSI.
• She was not trying to change free software, but only the "string" attached to it:

  The problem was not that explaining the meaning is impossible—the problem was that the name for an important idea should not be so confusing to newcomers. A clearer term was needed. No political issues were raised regarding the free software term; the issue was its lack of clarity to those new to the concept.

[yawpitch]

Not the same thing.

Prove that, don't just state it. The OSI was formed as a direct reaction to the Nestcape announcement that it was adopting the latter of the two models Raymond had described a year earlier in "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" ... that article, alone, stated practically speaking, codified everything you're crediting to the OSI's "invention", but Raymond, for what it's worth, credited Linus Torvalds for the invention of the "bazaar" portion of that essay, and that was the foundational idea of what eventually became termed "open source". I don't disagree with them naming the invention, I don't disagree with them writing down (a) formal definition of the invention ... what I disagree with is given them credit for the invention when it was clearly existing prior art. Which goes a long way towards explaining why they hold neither a patent on the model nor a copyright on the label.

Another example: animals had tails even before we called them "tails". But we, humans, absolutely DID invent the concept of "tail".

And how utterly pathetic and pitiable our act of "invention", compared to what came before it.

The mere act of coining a word gives you no claim to having invented the concepts that underly. You've as much as agreed with that.

Similarly, the mere act of writing down the definition of a word, equally, gives you no claim to having invented either the word, or by extension any of the underlying concepts. As you've agreed the OSI didn't coin the term, and as I've shown above they didn't invent any of the underlying concepts from which the definition takes its meaning.

All they did was write down the definition and then succeed in giving that definition cachet. For that, alone, they deserve credit ... but they didn't invent anything underpinning that definition, any more than Webster's or the Oxford University Press tend to.

But I agree with Petersen ... she deserves credit for the term "open source software" (and for clearly stating the fact that it was fully intended as a re-branding of "free software", and also acknowledging that "open source" itself was lifted from the intelligence community), while O'Reilly and Raymond deserve the bulk of the credit for marketing it so well. I'd still say the credit for the actual invention goes to Torvalds, in part, and Stallman, and at least a generations of coders, hackers, and phreakers before them.

[Aspie96]

Prove that

You said that Netscape said "open software". I didn't say it, you did. I simply said that "open software" and "open source" are not the same. I am talking about semantics, about strings and the two are different strings.

codified everything you're crediting to the OSI's "invention"

Once more:

• I am NOT crediting OSI with the idea of distributing software with certain permissions.
• I am simply crediting OSI for popularizing this exact sequence of letters (not case-sensitive): "open source" and attaching a meaning to it that everybody (almost) recognizes. That is all I am crediting OSI for. Not anything else.

I don't disagree with them naming the invention,

Then let's not call "open source" that which isn't. I am not saying there is anything bad about this license, just that saying it is "for open source" is confusing.

what I disagree with is given them credit for the invention when it was clearly existing prior art.

They don't take credit for is. They recognize they essentially are giving another name for "free software". Indeed, the definitions are nearly identical and most OSI-approved licenses are free (reason why they will not approve this license, as it'd be open source but not free not FLOSS, which itself creates issues about compatibility and confusion).

And how utterly pathetic and pitiable our act of "invention", compared to what came before it.

Right. And what OSI did is pathetic as well. But, just as we are not redefining "tails", we shouldn't redefine "open source" either.

We have the power of creating new words instead of misusing them.

You are treating a conversation about words as if it is about substance.

Similarly, the mere act of writing down the definition of a word, equally, gives you no claim to having invented either the word, or by extension any of the underlying concepts.

It's not something that you can extend. A concept can exist before a word attached to it existed (for instance if there was another word attached to it).

and for clearly stating the fact that it was fully intended as a re-branding of "free software", and also acknowledging that "open source" itself was lifted from the intelligence community

Right. And if we assumed we need to follow her definition rather than OSI's (I made an argument for why I think OSI should be the authority on this, but I don't need it), then this license is not open source as it is not meant to be free. So either way we can conclude it's not for "open source software".

It is, however, meant for "available source software", which is an expression I've heard. So it could be rebranded like that.

I'd still say the credit for the actual invention goes to Torvalds, in part, and Stallman, and at least a generations of coders, hackers, and phreakers before them.

That absolutely nobody disagrees with, not even OSI. Once more, this discussion is just about the term "open source" and absolutely nothing whatsoever else from my part. My line of reasong is:

• OSI popularized the expression "open source" (in a world which already knew and used free software).
• A meaning is now attached to "open source" that everybody recognizes. It is not merely related to being able to access the code. The OSD is meant to be practically equivalent to "free software", as it is a rebranding of something which existed already.
• The OSI is largely recognized as the authority for "open source" and they have an approval process for licenses. Whether it deserves such authority actually doesn't matter. Either way, it determines what people mean and understand as "open source". English doesn't deserve to be the most spoken language either, but here I am using it, because deserved or not it's the way it is.
• Using the expression "open source" to describe something which is not free software, according to something follows the OSD and according to others it doesn't and has also not been approved by OSI is confusing.
• There is a very simple solution: those supporting this kind of license should make a new word, or expression, so that we can keep talking about "open source", "free software" and "ethical license" (or whatever the author decises) without confusion.

This is not an ideological issue, it's just about words. Why would you ever want to call this license "open source"?

[Aspie96]

I would like to mark precisely the point where this discussion, opened by the OP, became ideological for no reason and completely derailed.

This is the point:

Moreover, if it does, should that field of endeavor not be discriminated against?

Let's say you are absolutely right and it IS a field that MUST be discriminated against. Then don't use open source. Simple as that.

I do see the value of a license which says “I don’t want me work used for evil”, while I fail to see the value of a license (or a designation of a family of licenses) that cannot make the same principled stance known.

Good, then you do not see the value of free software, nor its rebraning as open source. Maybe that's because they have no value. But if you don't like that, why would you call your software "open source".

Let's compare this license to something completely different: public domain. Many people say things like "this work I made is in the public domain. Just don't sell it" or "this work I made is in the public domain. Just put my name on it" or some other restriction. Then they are creating confusion as either the work is in the public domain or there are restrictions. Most of what I do is not in the public domain and I would never imply it is.

@pearu it had an apparent contradiction, to you... I see a possible, and given some of the equally apparent conflicts of interest of the OSI even likely contradiction,

Good, so we are on the same page. If there is a contraddiction which this license and open source, they are not the same. If there is a possible contraddiction, then it still musn't be called open source: it is possibly misleading Similarly, if I release a software limiting its use (which I did in one case at least, using the JSON license that forbids using it for evil), then it is not open source. The source is available, but it's not open source and it's up to me to call it somehow else.

Personally I think anyone actively applying pressure to the authors to do so, in light of the obvious and stated intent of the license -- and the apparent moral apathy of the OSI -- might want to consider if the ordering of their priorities are rather screwed up.

But why call something "open source"?

That said I would say to the authors that perhaps this is an appropriate time to create and promote an Ethical Open Source Definition

This would still be confusing because it contains "Open Source Definition" and people will think it's open source. Is it so hard to call it something other than "open source"?

It's not unreasonable that there could be confusion with the license as currently worded, since the license text itself does not draw attention to the fact that it's incompatible with the OSD's existing Criteria 5 and 6 ... assuming someone ONLY receives the HL's LICSENSE.md file and does not actually read either this (by then likely closed) github issue on the repo, or takes the effort to redirect themselves to Paragraph 2 of the author's note they might be left unclear, which could be an issue for a variety of reasons for authors who switch to this license and their downstream consumers, even those engaging in otherwise ethical activities.

What you mentioned is very likely. If I send you a copy of my software and a copy of the license, you shouldn't be forced to read external references. It is perfectly reasonable for somebody to receive software under a license and never ever read the discussions of those who produced such license.

Based on the writings of one of the OSI founders -- which seem to be at least as if not more morally tenuous and unsound as those of the founder of the FSF ... seriously, I feel cheapened having read them -- I should think it might be better explicitly and loudly distinguish the HL from what's apparently the fruits of a poisoned tree.

Then you agree with me.

Dragging people into that debate is rather like the tactic of trying to make a debate about gun control instead a debate about the definition of "assault weapon"... engaging in a "use the right names" argument is a red herring.

Why did you enter this discussion at all, then, since it is precisely about use words right?

Even in the case the OSI rejects the application, or the application is revoked, there is still no reason to remove the term “open source”, other than as a courtesy to the OSI.

Even you mentioned some reasons.

Honestly, why does this license need to be called "open source"?

[yawpitch]

I would like to mark precisely the point where this discussion, opened by the OP, became ideological for no reason and completely derailed.

Seriously? The OP’s point is one of ideology. You wouldn’t be here arguing about trying to maintain the purity and market value of a term so generic and vague that no one can claim it as a trademark except because you’re influenced by your ideology.

The current text of the license doesn’t claim to adhere to the OSD, it doesn’t call itself an open source license, it only exists to present a potential alternative for open software whose source is open to others — notice, not your quasi-religious phrasing — that do not wish to be complicit in the ethical failings that derive from ill-considered legalistic adherence to the worst oversights inherent in the OSD.

This Issue has been mooted for quite some time; your continuing contributions to the discussion are noted, but are also mooted.

[Aspie96]

Seriously? The OP’s point is one of ideology.

No, it is one of language:

The license contradicts the requirements 5 and 6 (see https://opensource.org/osd) to be used for open-source software. Hence the term "open source" should be removed from the license text.

He simply says to remove "open source".

If you think it is ideological, you should also be able to point out which ideology he has. But from his comments, you can't tell. It's not clear wether he even supports OSI, or wether he likes this license. He simply suggested a change to the documentation to be made.

If that's ideological, all of language is.

The current text of the license doesn’t claim to adhere to the OSD,

The problem is not the license, but the documentation. I agree it doesn't say it adheres to the OSD, but you yourself have presented arguments for why "open source" might still be confusing.

it only exists to present a potential alternative for open software whose source is open to others — notice, not your quasi-religious phrasing — that do not wish to be complicit in the ethical failings that derive from ill-considered legalistic adherence to the worst oversights inherent in the OSD.

Good, very nice. So why calling it "open source"? Is it actually so hard to use two different terms to refer to two different things?

[yawpitch]

As to why I stepped into this discussion: the OP of this issue, and apparently you, are arguing that the OSD is sacrosanct and that parties outside the OSI have no right to propose an alternative path for the open source community, one that takes a step back and considers the inherently radical — and seemingly ill-considered — stance that a significant part of the power begins the cresting wave of the largest technological revolution in human history (and very likely the last one) should not take an interest in the ethics of its work.

The natural outcome of that stance is so blatantly obvious, and inherently suicidal, that I honestly couldn’t live with myself if I didn’t argue for the voices that try to confront it.

[Aspie96]

As to why I stepped into this discussion: the OP of this issue, and apparently you, are arguing that the OSD is sacrosanct

I am not. As I stated, not even all of my work is open source and I have no intention of making it open source.

parties outside the OSI have no right to propose an alternative path for the open source community,

If the path is different, then it's a different community. The OS community (which is largely the same people as the free software one) produces software which can be used by everybody for any purpose. If you think that's bad, fine, but that's what it is. If we want something else, let's give it a different name because it's a different community.

a significant part of the power begins the cresting wave of the largest technological revolution in human history (and very likely the last one) should not take an interest in the ethics of its work.

This is actually where the free software community and the open source community differ. While the first consider immoral software not to be free (that includes freedom 0), the second one doesn't tell you what license to use. Even OSI is cool with not open source licenses. As long as you don't call them "open source".

It sounds to me like you disagree with both open source and the definiton of free software. But, instead of creating a new term, you want to redefine it for others as well. This is not how it should work. "Open source" has a meaning which describes a set of principles and licenses. If it described another set of principles and licenses it wouldn't be the same thing and we wouldn't call it the same way.

When, in Italy, we cicked the king away to have a democracy, we also stopped calling ourselves a "monarchy", because we no longer followed the definition. If your software prohibits some usage of it, then it is not "open source", call it something else.

Is there any argument for not calling it something else which is not based on exploiting the success the open source community had to create an alternative one which pretends to be part of it? If yes, I'd like to hear it.

[yawpitch]

No, it is one of language:

Only from within an ideological framework that grants the power to define for all to a political organization with a specific stance and a financial stake in that definition holding.

If that's ideological, all of language is.

Yes. Good. Now you’re starting to understand. Yes, all language is ideological. When we grant to a self-interested minority the power to limit the evolution of that language, we subscribe to a specific kind of ideology. One that is often especially repugnant, especially when that definition eschews ethics in favor of economics.

The problem is not the license, but the documentation. I agree it doesn't say it adheres to the OSD, but you yourself have presented arguments for why "open source" might still be confusing.

Those arguments were for the earlier version of the text. As currently written no one could make a colorable argument in any court of law that the “open source” brand as you and the OSI imagine it is capable of being injured by the Hippocratic License.

So why calling it "open source"?

The license itself is not, I believe, currently called “open source”, but the documentation does state it’s for the open source community... it then goes on to explain very clearly that it’s an affirmative choice to introduce a fork that goes further than the OSD.

Is it actually so hard to use two different terms to refer to two different things?

No, but is it so hard to avoid using circular reasoning? Your resistance to an ethical fork of the notion of “open source” stems from your acceptance of the fixity of the OSD... anyone trying to treat the OSD as a living document isn’t a legalist and isn’t an originalist... they don’t accept the fixity you have accepted. From their position they are not talking about two different things, and thus the only argument that a new name is necessary hinges on a definition they already consider insufficient. If they completely abandon the term you’re comfortable with they reduce your cognitive dissonance and make it easier for you to continue operating in a world in which ethical concerns are secondary to economic ones. In their minds that’s doing you a disservice.

[yawpitch]

If the path is different, then it's a different community.

Ever seen a religious schism? Notice how both groups continue to claim to be the one true church?

The hope of someone expounding the notion of Ethical Source — it’s been given another name by the way, stop saying it hasn’t — is that the majority of people in what is currently termed Open Source simply haven’t noticed that their founders created a system that lacked ethical restrictions on actions those founders had no capacity to imagine... that then the bulk of the original community might step away from the ill-considered past, leaving only a fatalistic remnant of deluded fundamentalists behind.

When such a movement is the majority of the body then it’s entirely right for the majority to keep and redefine the name, since the fork down which the majority goes is the one true church.

Your stance is that the majority of Open Source community members accept, with perfect understanding, and hold as desirable and necessary the OSD’s complete abandonment to corporate greed and authoritarian malice of any limitations due to ethical concerns.

I hope you’re wrong. I doubt you are, but I hope.

[Aspie96]

Only from within an ideological framework that grants the power to define for all to a political organization with a specific stance and a financial stake in that definition holding.

Wether you need such framework to make OP's point is different. Regardless, the question is of language.

I should mention, arguments have been proposed for why this shouldn't be called "open source" (some of which are not based on OSI, such as the fact that "open source" is a rebranding of "free software" and the fact that the meaning of "open source" is well understood and doesn't allow restrictions on use), but no arguments has been made for not changing the definition to something else.

Yes. Good. Now you’re starting to understand. Yes, all language is ideological.

I, and you (I'd assume) disagree with nazism. Shall I redefine nazism to something that I agree with (it now means liking cream), or should I keep the definition identical and say I disagree with it? (Yes, I'm aware I followed Internet's laws).

When we grant to a self-interested minority the power to limit the evolution of that language, we subscribe to a specific kind of ideology.

I am granting this right to pretty much the whole open source community, which has a common understanding. If "open source" has any meaning is that one. If it doesn't, then its meaningliess. Either way it shall be removed from the documentation as it's either useless, misleading or wrong.

One that is often especially repugnant, especially when that definition eschews ethics in favor of economics.

It doesn't. It simply says "this thing is called open source". This is ideologically neutral. "Software should be open source" is not ideologically neutral.

The license itself is not, I believe, currently called “open source”,

It says:

An Ethical License for Open Source Projects

Which is a lie. It's not for open source projects.

but the documentation does state it’s for the open source community...

Which is inaccurate, as its aim is to create a different community with different ideologies.

it then goes on to explain very clearly that it’s an affirmative choice to introduce a fork that goes further than the OSD.

Doesn't go further, but in a different direction. One which isn't open source.

the only argument that a new name is necessary hinges on a definition they already consider insufficient.

Right, it is insufficient. But if you alter it it still becomes something different, so it's no longer open source. Insufficient doesn't mean entirely meaningless.

Ever seen a religious schism? Notice how both groups continue to claim to be the one true church?

The second one wouldn't be open source. Maybe it'd be better, but not open source. Maybe open source is pure evil and we need a fork of it. Such fork will not be open source and shouldn't have the same name.

BUT, this discussion shouldn't be about wether the ideas of OSI are right, but merely about wether the license should be called "open source". The OP, I and others explained why this can lead to confusion (it conflicts with the common understanding of the term) and no reason to keep the term has been given.

The hope of someone expounding the notion of Ethical Source — it’s been given another name by the way, stop saying it hasn’t

The website still says "Open Source". I'm happy it has another name, but it should stop using the previous one as it's not accurate. Once it does, this is no longer an issue.

I will not respond to the rest of your comment because it goes once again out of track. The only question in this conversation is wether the documentation should say "open source". Wether we agree with the license or not is a different matter.

that then the bulk of the original community might step away from the ill-considered past, leaving only a fatalistic remnant of deluded fundamentalists behind.

Right, and it will then be a different thing, so it still will not be called "open source". The remnant will be.

and hold as desirable and necessary the OSD’s complete abandonment

Listen. If you disagree with the open source definition, why would you not want to abandon it? What's so bad about not using a specific word to refer to something it doesn't mean?

[Aspie96]

Your stance is that the majority of Open Source community members accept, with perfect understanding,

To clarify, my stance is simply that the open source community already has a meaning for the words "Open Source". Wether such meaning indicates a good thing or a bad one is up to a debate I am not willing to have as it is irrelevant for this conversation.

[yawpitch]

Listen. If you disagree with the open source definition, why would you not want to abandon it?

Because there's such a thing as a hard fork and such a thing as a soft fork, and there's no reason to leap to a hard fork if what you're trying to do is help a community evolve.

I am a contributing member of the open source community; I do not accept as eternal, unyielding religious dogma either the OSD, any more that I accept that any utterance made by OSI is canon law for the community they purport to represent. I do not accept that "open source" is an immutable concept, or that the OSD is a set of stone tablets delivered to us by the gray beards as a covenant unbreakable.

Thus I do not believe that the authors of the Hippocratic License can or should be:

1. required to remove the term "open source" to appease fundamentalists
2. asked to remove the term "open source" to protect non-fundamentalists from confusion
3. continuously peppered with the sort of tautologies and circular reasoning only fundamentalists can rely on in their bid to achieve movement on 1 or 2.

It's time to close this issue. You've all been heard, what need there was to adapt the license to those points has been addressed. Move on.

[Aspie96]

what you're trying to do is help a community evolve.

No, what you are trying to do is change a definition of a word to your advantage. If there is anything that is dishonest, it's that: changing words for political or ideological reasons.

You are trying to redefine "open source" to mean something different than it does, to stear the open source community in your direction. "Open source", wether we like OSI or not, is a rebranding of free software. That's why almost all OSI licenses are free software.

You are trying to replace a concept with something else. If the idea of open source changes, there is absolutely no reason why those who support open source still should.

required to remove the term "open source" to appease fundamentalists

OSI are opposites of foundamentalists. They are almost amoral. However, if we see open source as a rebranding of free software, you are right: the free software movement absolutely is of foundamentalists and the open source movement is based on the same grounds. So, what's wrong with foundamentalists? If you disagree with the foundamentals of open source, stop lying about open source.

asked to remove the term "open source" to protect non-fundamentalists from confusion

Would you provide an argument for why people do not deserve to be mislead in favour of your ideology?

continuously peppered with the sort of tautologies

You do know that a "tautology" is something which is necessarely true, right? It's not a bad thing.

circular reasoning

Pretty much anything can fall in three states, if tried to be argued completely: 1) The regression stops to an axiom. 2) The regression continues indefenitely (this is often a problem in computer science). 3) The regression comes back to a point reached before: circular reasoning.

Now, you are suggesting my reasoning, or those of others, is circular, but you haven't shown so.

In fact, it isn't, as it falls in case 1, as follows: Premise 1: "Open source" has a commonly understood meaning, whether you get it from OSI or from the fact that it's a rebranding of "free software". Premise 2: Terms should be used in a way that conveys meaning and, possibly, accurate meaning. Premise 3: This license doesn't follow the meaning of "open source". Premise 4: Calling this license "open source" does not convey accurate meaning. Conclusion: This license should not be called "open source".

This is not circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is in the form ("I know A is true because B is true" and "I know B is true because A is true"). Bare in mind, though: saying "A implies A" is not circular reasoning, unless you claim that's how you know A. Also, saying "B contains A, I know (or assume B), thus A" is also not circular (that's a common misconception about circular reasoning). Instead, that's a case of logical consistency and how all of monotone logic works (Modus Ponens): in a word, the diametral opposite of circular reasoning.

Now, I think it is possible you genuinely weren't aware of circular reasoning, but I deem it incredibly unlikely. What I think is more likely is that you are not ignorant of it and you were, once more, willingly misusing a term to mislead those reading this conversation. I will, of course, assume the best option (that you weren't trying to mislead), as it would be dishonest of me not to, but you are now aware of my argument (which doesn't have a circular structure whether you agree with it or not), so it no longer applies.

If this license has a point in existing, it should be able to provide it in an intellectually honest way, not trough lying.

Now, this license being claimed to be "open source" looks to me like it's intellectually dishonest enough, but it gets worse. The claim being made is that OSI shouldn't be an authority over which licenses are defined as "open source" and that "open source" has a different meaning than "free software" (or else freedom 0 would apply, rendering the argument worthless: the difference between the two terms is not me strawmaning the argument, but stealmaning it). The problem is, an explicit alternative definition of "open source" is not being provided. If "open source" doesn't mean what everybody else means, then what DOES it men?

There is only one point in favour of this license being referred to as "for open source developement": the misconception that open source only relies on the source being readable by everybody. In which case, it should state so explicitly, but I know it won't be.

Il giorno mer 18 dic 2019 alle ore 13:35 Michael Morehouse < notifications@github.com> ha scritto:

Listen. If you disagree with the open source definition, why would you not want to abandon it?

Because there's such a thing as a hard fork and such a thing as a soft fork, and there's no reason to leap to a hard fork if what you're trying to do is help a community evolve.

I am a contributing member of the open source community; I do not accept as eternal, unyielding religious dogma either the OSD, any more that I accept that any utterance made by OSI is canon law for the community they purport to represent. I do not accept that "open source" is an immutable concept, or that the OSD is a set of stone tablets delivered to us by the gray beards as a covenant unbreakable.

Thus I do not believe that the authors of the Hippocratic License can or should be:

1. required to remove the term "open source" to appease fundamentalists
2. asked to remove the term "open source" to protect non-fundamentalists from confusion
3. continuously peppered with the sort of tautologies and circular reasoning only fundamentalists can rely on in their bid to achieve movement on 1 or 2.

It's time to close this issue. You've all been heard, what need there was to adapt the license to those points has been addressed. Move on.

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ContributorCovenant/hippocratic-license/issues/7?email_source=notifications&email_token=ADJ3F5J3QN2ZUIUJVOXRXADQZIKJFA5CNFSM4IZ7XEXKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEHF7DIA#issuecomment-567013792, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADJ3F5O447VUUSYZXV7K5DTQZIKJFANCNFSM4IZ7XEXA .

[yawpitch]

You do know that a "tautology" is something which [sic] is necessarely [sic] true, right?

Actually I used that word for very good and specific reason: the word tautology means to repeat the same thing needlessly in the same context, which is exactly what you've been doing. It's adoption in formal logic postdates its original definition by several centuries; thus, by your own reasoning, it is impossible for a tautology to mean what you think it means, and you've being "intellectually dishonest" by using it and thinking otherwise.

You stopped furthering your argument some time ago. You've made your case, repeatedly; the term "open source" will either be removed after due consideration of your arguments, or it will not. In either case it's not your place to determine which occurs. Time to move on.