[polotics]

By the way whatever happened to attempts to set up FOSS licenses that prohibit the usage of "free" software on a range of damaging exploitative activities? Eg. "It's free, or one million per day if your company pays any worker less than a living wage / kills people / allows enforcement of human rights violation like, ironically, restrictions on freedom of speech..."

[bad_user]

Such software is not Free Software or Open Source, according to their definitions.

The freedom to use the software for any purpose is imo the most important freedom of all.

Straight from the horse's mouth, here's Richard Stallman on "why programs must not limit the freedom to run them":

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freed...

[tokyodude]

RMS also has a solution

> Low-paying organizations do poorly in competition with high-paying ones, but they do not have to do badly if the high-paying ones are banned.

> All sorts of development can be funded with a Software Tax:

> Suppose everyone who buys a computer has to pay x percent of the price as a software tax. The government gives this to an agency like the NSF to spend on software development.

https://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.en.html

not personally a fan of that solution

[bad_user]

Given that much of the Free / Open Source software is for the public good, critical FOSS could be funded via taxes, I don't see why not.

Of course you can be anti-taxes and prefer a minimal government, you can be an anarchist like the folks in this community tend to be, but we do pay taxes, for roads, for public schools, for public healthcare and as long as we are paying taxes, I don't see why some FOSS couldn't be funded by the state.

[AstralStorm]

Yes, putting this much money in the hands of a government who cannot even code good voting machines would be criminal.

An accountable foundation from a list would work much better.

[brylie]

"Ethical source" licenses exist, such as the Do No Harm license:

https://github.com/raisely/NoHarm

https://hackernoon.com/6-myths-about-ethical-open-source-lic...

Software developers can also commit to a form of the Hippocratic Oath:

https://github.com/Widdershin/programmers-oath

https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1016991

[brylie]

From The Obligation of the Engineer:

> As an engineer, I shall participate in none but honest enterprises. When needed, my skill and knowledge shall be given without reservation for the public good.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineer's_Ring#The_Obligati...

[TeMPOraL]

It would be great if this (and the Iron Ring) was more popular worldwide.

Also, imagine every software developer taking an oath with the phrase you just quoted. Adtech industry would disappear overnight.

[Ygg2]

> Adtech industry would disappear overnight.

That or the promise of doing good, would just be empty signaling.

[slavik81]

I've taken a similar oath, but I don't think it really addresses polotics's concerns. Each of his mentioned topics are subjects which you could discuss and debate at length because reasonable people could disagree, especially when considering specific cases.

The Obligation is not specific enough to deal with complex problems which may have multiple different points of view. The point of it is for you to think about the morality of your actions and to do what you think is right. But, polotics would presumably like to require you to do what he thinks is right.

[saagarjha]

The problem is that nobody really knows what "Do No Harm" really means, so it's effectively useless to include this in your license unless your goal is to get nobody to use it.

[brylie]

There are some clear examples mentioned in the DNH license text. Also, if a project or company discovers their purpose or business model has adverse effects for a significant population or evosystem, that would signify harm. The "ethical source" licenses are encouraging software developers to be proactive in our duty of care for the general public.

[saagarjha]

That list is not useful, for two reasons: one, the quality of the list isn’t great, because it’s by no means exhaustive, is subject to the ethical whims of the maintainer, and is too general (e.g. “violence (except when required to protect public safety)”-what is this supposed to mean? Can’t every government say they only perpetuate violence to protect public safety?) The other part is that you also need to prove that I have been doing the action, which hard: if my company sells computers and some of them end up going to the NRC so they can send email, is the company suddenly in violation of the license?

[brylie]

I understand that ethical definitions are fuzzy. Just because we find confusing or unresolved ethical areas, does not invalidate efforts to clarify an ethical standpoint.

The list can never be complete, nor should it be exhaustive, but it is a living document (PRs are welcome). An ETHICS text is intended a candle in an otherwise darkened space. It is intended to promote critical thought about these pressing issues, and to take action to improve ourselves, our projects, companies, and communities.

[robin_reala]

They don’t count as ‘Open Source’ according to the definition of the Open Source Foundation: https://opensource.org/docs/osd

6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

[jacobush]

Or nuclear warheads.

[kryptiskt]

Sure, you can make such software, but who would take the risk to use it in a corporate environment? Without traction you're not going to do much good anyway.

[tokai]

Sounds a little like copyfarleft.

Edit: Why the downvotes? It was a serious comment:

"establish a form of cooperative which would function in the same way as the copyright collection societies [...] Members would assign their copyrights to the cooperative, which would issue free non-exclusive licenses to other members. [...] Non-members could still use the works but would have to negotiate and pay a licensing fee in the normal manner. The original twist is in the criteria for membership of the cooperative, which would be limited to those who do not employ wage-labour or capital-intensive technology in producing cultural works;"[0]

[0]https://knowfuture.wordpress.com/2007/11/22/copyfarleft-an-a...