Similarity to Just World Hypothesis about noharm HOT 10 CLOSED

Let's keep this issue to discussion of the name. As to weather to restrict violence in the license, can you open another issue for this?

On the name, I'm still leaning towards the "Do No Harm License"

The things I think this name has going for it:

• The framing of the Hippocratic oath is well accepted
• The core notion is easy to comprehend at first glance
• The short name could be NoHarm, much easier to get the gist than JWL or EWL

Ethical carries a lot of baggage as society has adopted the view that "Ethical" = gray.
The knee jerk reaction I generally see to ethical is "who decides?", I think this is a harder argument to make with "do no harm"

from noharm.

Just saw this and thought it might be indirectly relevant to this discussion:

• https://www.acm.org/code-of-ethics
• https://theconversation.com/programmers-need-ethics-when-designing-the-technologies-that-influence-peoples-lives-100802

from noharm.

Good observation.

Hadn't thought about it.

How about "Better World License"? "Fair World License"? "Do Good License"? "Only Do Good License"?

from noharm.

Credit where credit is due: source

The "Do No Harm License"?

Also, all the discussion in #1

from noharm.

The "Do No Harm License"?

Sounds good.

. . .

Wait... I think there might be a problem...

a) lobbies for, promotes, or derives a majority of income from actions that support or contribute to: pornography, sex trafficking, human trafficking, slavery, indentured servitude, gambling, tobacco, adversely addictive behaviours, nuclear energy, warfare, war crimes, violence (except when required to protect public safety), burning of forests, deforestation, hate speech or discrimination based on age, gender, race, sexuality, religion, nationality.

The problem with harm (or violence) is that it can sometimes be justifiable.

:/ Life is complicated...

from noharm.

The "Humanitarian License"?

This is a can of worms.

from noharm.

I like "Ethical World License".

It was previously proposed by @tommaitland in #1.

I think the name describes the intent of the license very well.

from noharm.

The problem with harm (or violence) is that it can sometimes be justifiable.

Surgeons cut people open to heal them, but still use the Hippocratic oath. ;-)

The no harm license is conceptually really easy to understand

from noharm.

Let's say there's a group engaging in protests, and using/developing software under the JWL (perhaps for communicating among themselves securely).

A no-violence clause in the license would mean they can only do peaceful/non-violent resistance.

Not everybody agrees to that strategy: https://www.amazon.com/Nonviolence-Protects-State-Peter-Gelderloos/dp/0896087727

from noharm.

The purpose of a name is to help people to instantly grasp a concept. I agree that "Do No Harm License" is intuitively understandable and that the similarity to the Hippocratic Oath is positive. I'd almost say "how about the Hippocratic Software License" but some people might get confused and think we're talking about hypocritical software :P

from noharm.