A license is not enough about noharm HOT 7 CLOSED

Agreed, this is just one piece of a larger puzzle. But it also opens us up to other discussions, such as unionization of tech workers, and worker autonomy more broadly. Doing this this in an open-source environment can lead to doing this in a closed-source environment. And several Google employees have already protested against the use of AI in U.S. Military drones.
Check out Tech Workers Coalition !

from noharm.

Thanks @clsource – I agree that there's a lot more we can do but I don't agree that means we shouldn't have the license at all.

While the enforceability of the license is untested, the license existing means that we can publically state that when we offer software for free, it is done with the active intention that the software must not be used for harm.

@chrisjensen has written a lot about the motivations of the license that it would be worth checking out:

• The Lerna license: Evolving FOSS licensing
• Why we need an Open Source License that considers the misuse of our code

I'd be open to seeing PRs for draft contracts/ToS in addition to the core license 😄

from noharm.

To add to Tom's list, enforceability is specifically discussed in this SE answer Software License which discriminates on 'ethical' grounds

from noharm.

Good suggestion @iwwmidatlanticgdc
Maybe it's worth providing some links in the README

from noharm.

Thanks for all your comments.
If I understand, the issue is not about enforceability, it´s more about sending a message.

The message to create a better world. And I do believe that message must be present in the tech industry both private and free/open source worlds.

I believe that if you can´t enforce the terms in the licence, then it's better to just give a blessing. In that way you could use any available licence and add a blessing. Like BSD+Blessing or MIT+Blessing or GPLv3+Blessing and so on.

Similar to what SQLite license tells (https://www.sqlite.org/different.html#license)

The SQLite source code contains no license since it is not governed by copyright. Instead of a license, the SQLite source code offers a blessing:

     May you do good and not evil
     May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others
     May you share freely, never taking more than you give. 

In that blessing you could include a small text. A positive vision with higher ethical values or just a poem. A simple blessing hoping your efforts will be used for a better world.

Another example is the Hanafuda Captain (http://www.siliconera.com/2017/01/08/hidden-message-contained-nintendo-classic-mini-famicom/) message in the Nes Mini.

"This is the hanafuda captain speaking. Launching emulation in 3...2...1. Many efforts, tears and countless hours have been put into this jewel. So, please keep this place tidied up and don't break everything! Cheers, the hanafuda captain."

Nintendo engineers were aware that people would mess around with the Nes Mini. So they put a message for the potential hackers out there.

The No Harm clauses should be used in ways that could be enforced like I said in Terms of Use, Terms of Service and Contracts better suited for organizations that could define wich activities they will not allow if someone uses their products or services and have the resources for taking action.

👍

from noharm.

On the closed source license/terms of use side of things, there's some discussion here: #17 We could do both. I agree that terms of use seems more legally enforceable. A blessing like the SQLite one seems a little too weak though.

from noharm.

I created this repo https://github.com/blessmy/software in order to separate both approaches 👍
I think both ways are complementary and have their use cases. So I think I can close this issue. Thanks for your comments 😄

from noharm.