The more I think about stuff, the more I'm inclined to think fuck open source and attempt to optimize for ethically free software
@bamfic I'm looking at things like License Zero to help. I'm just not finding the answers I'm hoping for in conventional open source
@jalcine I'm really tempted in that direction too. just not sure how to do it in a way that plausibly seems like it might be enforceable, especially since I can't afford any serious legal battle…
@jamey Same. I'm leaning on people who know more than me to help with that
@slylax eh this read a bit forgiving of the issues I'm trying to avoid
@jalcine which are, if I may ask?
@slylax DRM apologists and the absolution of being free for any and all
@slylax yeah re-reading it, it's largely "we need companies to survive because relying on communities, despite being a viable route, isn't what we want so fuck 'em" towards the end too
@jalcine to be fair, at the time they probably did. At least, if the desire was to take on the world as they have. However, I do agree that communities, now, are viable. My reasoning is thus:
I want to enforce software freedoms with my software. Nothing more. if I were to make hardware, it'd be open/free like System76 or Librem5.
@riking @jalcine Yeah, I tend to agree that the answer must come from somewhere else – we can't enforce ethics using licenses as these simply build on top of copyright. The GDPR is interesting because it legislates behaviour in general. In theorey, at least, there's no escaping it. The main problem is that unethical behaviour is often legal. People *want* ICE. 😦 The problem remains: where is space for individual action? You can add political statements to your software? Free speech, after all.
@jalcine I asked about this a while ago on birdsite, and I got a lot weird pushback from FOSS people.
One of them was "how do you define ethical behaviour?" and like, I don't know, but I'd like to think the way ICE treats children and families should count as unethical.
And most of all, what's wrong with at least trying to formulate a definition that at least excludes some of the horrible things organisations get up to
Neither does a proprietary license. No license will stop it. For example, if a person tortures someone and uses your software, a license isn't needed on your software to prevent it, because that is the government's job to prevent that evil. But when the state tortures, a software license won't stop them from using your software. That is simply a corrupt state, which is a bigger problem which needs to be solved.
Was gonna chime in to say this.
Software licenses mean nothing if the state won't enforce them anyway. Abuse happens because we don't have the power to stop it, not because we didn't ask pretty please don't be bad.
Those who care about ethical tech need to do a better job of organizing, no license is gonna fix that for us.
Like sure we shouldn't just ignore legal options because they're not radical enough, because it can be one tool among many.
But the state is only an arbiter of power. If we aren't building political and social orgs that empower people to fight this shit, whether there's a good license or not, then it just won't be enough to stop Nazis who don't give a fuck about the law.
For example, locally there are groups shaming companies by showing up and leafleting their workers to make them aware of the abuses they're contributing too with their employer.
From there employees can respond with protest and reach out to organizers for support in shutting that shit down
We need to be doing that kind of work too before a software license stops anything imo.
@jalcine i licensed my last big project with CSL (cooperative software license), its not perfect and i dont think any license is a silver bullet but i agree that the free software philosophy as it exists right now has major flaws.
As long as it's your work, it's your call. There's no ethical issue there until you accept contributions. At that point, there's a moral responsibility to the expectations you permitted over and above any legal agreements involved
@jalcine thank youuuuuu🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽
@jalcine there is this license https://firstdonoharm.dev/version/1/1/license.html
It just refers to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights to do the lifting. It is otherwise a permissive license.
I am on the fence generally, don't like that it is permissive, it might create big gray areas.. I don't think the declaration is designed for this.. Also don't know how the limited liability part affects the human rights part.
@jasper I've seen that - I'd want something that allows me to explicitly provide access to people versus waiting for them to do wrong. Also the UN has done very little to prevent or intercede in a lot of active genocidal harm right now so they aren't my beacon of hope lol
Social is the primary social media platform for the forth coming fourth version of Play Vicious, a new initiative built to bring attention to the plethora of creative acts that don't get the shine they deserve.
For more details about the project and how to support, go here.