Follow

>The story of JSLint is held up as the poster-child of how silly ethical licenses are. The library’s license included the term “The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil”, which was claimed to be pointless and unenforcable because it was so vague. And yet, IBM was sufficiently scared of the possibility of legal trouble that they asked the JSLint author for express permission to use JSLint for evil.

Using an ethical license might result in confused people asking you for permission to do something you specifically said not to in your license?
Found this old story while looking up on ethical licenses: wonko.com/post/jsmin-isnt-welc

· · Web · 2 · 1 · 1

@aiscarvalho @manetta @joanachicau @decentral1se this is interesting for some of the discussions we had and projects you worked on!

@rra @manetta @joanachicau @decentral1se the quoted paragraph is from this article, by the authors of the Do No Harm License (previously named Just World License): hackernoon.com/6-myths-about-e

Would love to know a what you discussed about! I'm still figuring out what to think of these kind of licenses. Though I understand the motivations I can't be convinced by it as a solution. It also seems many proponents are coming from licenses that aren't copyleft, like the MIT license.

@aiscarvalho @rra @manetta @joanachicau hey, cool, you're looking into it! check out https://vvvvvvaria.org/not-for-any for good thinking on navigating this. in general, re: ethical licenses, i wouldn't think in terms of "solutions" but more in terms of why they are important: questioning freedom 0 should be done. the ethical dimension should be addressed. I took a stab at starting up a "Hippocratic-copyleft" work group but ran out of cycles: https://github.com/EthicalSource/hippocratic-copyleft. Happy to hear more / discuss!

@decentral1se @rra @manetta @joanachicau Thanks for pointing out the toolkit. It's a good framing for the issue and a very sensible way to encourage conversations around licensing.
I'm trying to put together some ideas around openly licensed photos of people and consent. Not directly related to ethical licenses but procrastination took me there :) I'll share
when I get somewhere

@aiscarvalho @decentral1se @manetta @joanachicau by the way have you seen this?

gitlab.constantvzw.org/unbound

a 'non-free' license to think about collective authorship and reuse

@aiscarvalho @manetta @joanachicau @decentral1se I'm also not fully convinced by these ethical licenses. But as @decentral1se mentioned, they work by reintroducing some questions in an environment where the issues of use, licensing, conditionality etc have been severly flattened by the drop-down-menu license picking seen in both GH and things like CC. Your example @aiscarvalho was super in the sense that it demonstrates they do/did have an impact sometimes.

A license with legally unclear terms will result in companies not using the software or asking for a different license (or an exception) is all it means.
Sign in to participate in the conversation
post.lurk.org

Welcome to post.lurk.org, an instance for discussions around cultural freedom, experimental, new media art, net and computational culture, and things like that.