search

raisely / NoHarm

Do No Harm software license - A licence for using software for good
Other
398 stars 41 forks source link

Similarity to Just World Hypothesis #9

Closed chrisjensen closed 6 years ago

chrisjensen commented 6 years ago

The name could be associated with the Just World Hypothesis.

Everyone get's what they deserve ie rich people and poor people are that way because of their decisions, not systemic failure.

Not the best association for a license with a progressive bent :-/

LuxLang commented 6 years ago

Good observation.

Hadn't thought about it.

How about "Better World License"? "Fair World License"? "Do Good License"? "Only Do Good License"?

chrisjensen commented 6 years ago

Credit where credit is due: source

The "Do No Harm License"?

Also, all the discussion in #1

LuxLang commented 6 years ago

The "Do No Harm License"?

Sounds good.

. . .

Wait... I think there might be a problem...

a) lobbies for, promotes, or derives a majority of income from actions that support or contribute to: pornography, sex trafficking, human trafficking, slavery, indentured servitude, gambling, tobacco, adversely addictive behaviours, nuclear energy, warfare, war crimes, violence (except when required to protect public safety), burning of forests, deforestation, hate speech or discrimination based on age, gender, race, sexuality, religion, nationality.

The problem with harm (or violence) is that it can sometimes be justifiable.

:/ Life is complicated...

tommaitland commented 6 years ago

The "Humanitarian License"?

This is a can of worms.

LuxLang commented 6 years ago

I like "Ethical World License".

It was previously proposed by @tommaitland in #1.

I think the name describes the intent of the license very well.

chrisjensen commented 6 years ago

The problem with harm (or violence) is that it can sometimes be justifiable.

Surgeons cut people open to heal them, but still use the Hippocratic oath. ;-)

The no harm license is conceptually really easy to understand

LuxLang commented 6 years ago

Let's say there's a group engaging in protests, and using/developing software under the JWL (perhaps for communicating among themselves securely).

A no-violence clause in the license would mean they can only do peaceful/non-violent resistance.

Not everybody agrees to that strategy: https://www.amazon.com/Nonviolence-Protects-State-Peter-Gelderloos/dp/0896087727

chrisjensen commented 6 years ago

Let's keep this issue to discussion of the name. As to weather to restrict violence in the license, can you open another issue for this?

On the name, I'm still leaning towards the "Do No Harm License"

The things I think this name has going for it:

Ethical carries a lot of baggage as society has adopted the view that "Ethical" = gray. The knee jerk reaction I generally see to ethical is "who decides?", I think this is a harder argument to make with "do no harm"

jeznag commented 6 years ago

The purpose of a name is to help people to instantly grasp a concept. I agree that "Do No Harm License" is intuitively understandable and that the similarity to the Hippocratic Oath is positive. I'd almost say "how about the Hippocratic Software License" but some people might get confused and think we're talking about hypocritical software :P

LuxLang commented 6 years ago

Just saw this and thought it might be indirectly relevant to this discussion: