search

raisely / NoHarm

Do No Harm software license - A licence for using software for good
Other
394 stars 42 forks source link

Reach of licence restrictions (and enforceability) #54

Closed f1yn closed 1 year ago

f1yn commented 5 years ago

Overview

As a member of the Raisely organisation (and someone who's interested in potentially implementing this licence for various technologies), I have a implementation question and concern regarding the enforceability and scope of this licence.

I have come up with the following scenario to demonstrate the issue⋆

  1. Creator (A) creates library (X) under the NoHarm licence
  2. (A) sells redistributable SaaS (Y) that heavily relies on (X) library to AnonCorp (B)
  3. AnonCorp anonymously sells (or provides an obfuscated copy of) a new product (Z) that is built on (A) and (X), but is using a commercial license that is not aware of the underlying composite libraries.
  4. Nefarious Incorporated (C) uses Saas (or equivalent) (Z) to do something that violates the NoHarm license.

⋆ All aforementioned names (with the exception of NoHarm) are hypothetical bodies, and not direct representation of specific companies, organisations, or individuals.

Question:

In what way can Creator (A), once aware of the actions made by the irresponsible user (C), take legal action against (C) due to abuse of the underlying software licencing?

Proposed Resolution

We need some sort of documentation outlining possible solutions that enable software creators who distribute their source products under NoHarm to enforce and raise awareness of the ethical boundaries their software has, potentially if that means requiring developers to integrate NoHarm into their Terms of Service Documentation.

chrisjensen commented 5 years ago

That's probably beyond the scope of what volunteers can prepare. At that point, if you want to enforce, its probably time to call your lawyer. If NoHarm software had a foundation like the FSF, then there would be the option of turning copyrights over to FSF to pursue legal challenges, but that's a long way off.

This is also probably related to #16 (Clarify direct vs indirect harm)