"JSLint uses the FSF / OSI approved Unlicense license. Before that, the JSLint license was a derivative of the MIT License. The sole modification was the addition of the line "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.""
"According to the Free Software Foundation, this previous clause made the original license non-free. It had also prevented JSLint-related software from being hosted on Google Code and from being included in the Debian free software package repositories."
I don't think the military will care if your open source library contains a "not for military purposes" restriction; and there is practically no way for you to verify.
> I think we have to consider that the principles of the free software movement,
> They are principles that deal in software development and licensing in strict isolation, outside of the social context of their use. They are code-centered, not human-centered.
That's kinda the point. There is no human-centered alternative to copyright; GPL and the Free Software movement is about weaponizing the only authority licensees seem to respect.
> The first is: how easy is open source software to use, anyway?
That's like asking how easy Creative Commons software is to use. Is there any common denominator? We're talking about open licenses here; anyone from Joe Blow to Raytheon can use them. A license rarely speaks to the quality of the software provided, especially when it's an open one.
> The second, more complicated one, is: I don’t want my software to be used to cause harm.
Simple solution: don't publish it.
Seriously. If you have overly-conscious work and want to ensure it is never used to harm someone, then don't share it. If your software is particularly useful for killing people, killers and fiends will use it regardless of the license you impose. By sharing it, you make that possible.
> They should not have to simply accept that someone could use their work to kill people, commit hate, perpetuate systemic injustices, or otherwise harm. There is nothing good and principled about that idea.
hey this nerd said in the license file I can't use his software in my bombs...welp better find some other software which supports my cause.
>They should have the right to restrict its use.
the reason why it's not recognized by FOSS is because the idea he's building is one on restrictions, one restriction will lead to another, to another and end up being discriminatory itself, then controlled by the same minded people on all topics.
I'd say more good than harm has been done by FOSS, and I'd rather go on the premise that my fellow humans will do good than harm, than sit around wasting time trying to fight the phantom user who will use it for the wrong purposes. (i wonder if this is written from his mac book pro)
>Many software licenses disallow use in a nuclear facility, for example.
why? nuclear power is a great asset! not that I'd hope nuclear facilities use some rando's open source code...but this is the start of the rabbit hole "restrictions" start to create
>I think many software developers would feel the same way.
hmm i doubt it! I don't care of my library is used to end the world, I hope its not... but if someone was going to make some world ending technology, i doubt my library is holding them back. So I won't waste precious seconds of my life thinking about it, nor will I be naive to think a license will stop them.
I feel like this is an activism akin to the people who sit in the middle of busy intersections about oil. The only people you will turn off are people who might have supported the cause.
>There are questions here about the rights of software authors
If I am so concerned about my rights being imposed on others, I would not use a FOSS license. These type of people so want to shoehorn their ideals onto FOSS that they are blinded by the fact that they can create their own thing... But they won't be cause it wont have the weight that FOSS does because "I think many software developers would feel the same way" is simply untrue. They are trying to leech on to the good work and good will of others for their own gain, becoming what they despise.
Readit News
"JSLint uses the FSF / OSI approved Unlicense license. Before that, the JSLint license was a derivative of the MIT License. The sole modification was the addition of the line "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.""
"According to the Free Software Foundation, this previous clause made the original license non-free. It had also prevented JSLint-related software from being hosted on Google Code and from being included in the Debian free software package repositories."
> They are principles that deal in software development and licensing in strict isolation, outside of the social context of their use. They are code-centered, not human-centered.
That's kinda the point. There is no human-centered alternative to copyright; GPL and the Free Software movement is about weaponizing the only authority licensees seem to respect.
> The first is: how easy is open source software to use, anyway?
That's like asking how easy Creative Commons software is to use. Is there any common denominator? We're talking about open licenses here; anyone from Joe Blow to Raytheon can use them. A license rarely speaks to the quality of the software provided, especially when it's an open one.
> The second, more complicated one, is: I don’t want my software to be used to cause harm.
Simple solution: don't publish it.
Seriously. If you have overly-conscious work and want to ensure it is never used to harm someone, then don't share it. If your software is particularly useful for killing people, killers and fiends will use it regardless of the license you impose. By sharing it, you make that possible.
> They should not have to simply accept that someone could use their work to kill people, commit hate, perpetuate systemic injustices, or otherwise harm. There is nothing good and principled about that idea.
Then why publish anything, ever?
>They should have the right to restrict its use.
the reason why it's not recognized by FOSS is because the idea he's building is one on restrictions, one restriction will lead to another, to another and end up being discriminatory itself, then controlled by the same minded people on all topics.
I'd say more good than harm has been done by FOSS, and I'd rather go on the premise that my fellow humans will do good than harm, than sit around wasting time trying to fight the phantom user who will use it for the wrong purposes. (i wonder if this is written from his mac book pro)
>Many software licenses disallow use in a nuclear facility, for example.
why? nuclear power is a great asset! not that I'd hope nuclear facilities use some rando's open source code...but this is the start of the rabbit hole "restrictions" start to create
>I think many software developers would feel the same way.
hmm i doubt it! I don't care of my library is used to end the world, I hope its not... but if someone was going to make some world ending technology, i doubt my library is holding them back. So I won't waste precious seconds of my life thinking about it, nor will I be naive to think a license will stop them.
I feel like this is an activism akin to the people who sit in the middle of busy intersections about oil. The only people you will turn off are people who might have supported the cause.
>There are questions here about the rights of software authors
If I am so concerned about my rights being imposed on others, I would not use a FOSS license. These type of people so want to shoehorn their ideals onto FOSS that they are blinded by the fact that they can create their own thing... But they won't be cause it wont have the weight that FOSS does because "I think many software developers would feel the same way" is simply untrue. They are trying to leech on to the good work and good will of others for their own gain, becoming what they despise.