commit 62dab5661e00034ed85e954056fcbbb0f87ce3d3
parent 96e6f7b720f3c889e3e81aaa106928bd0a161d34
Author: Jake Bauer <jbauer@paritybit.ca>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2023 14:34:39 -0400
Update ethical license section
Diffstat:
1 file changed, 71 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/content/garden/software-licenses.md b/content/garden/software-licenses.md
@@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ unnecessary language.
<p class="note">This section is somewhat inflammatory, but it's so frustrating
to witness so much incompetence I think it's only appropriate that you read my
-unfiltered thoughts.<p>
+unfiltered thoughts.</p>
The ISC license states:
@@ -130,18 +130,76 @@ Software](/a-critique-of-free-software) and [Free Software is an Abject
Failure](/blog/free-software-is-an-abject-failure) for more on this topic and
my stance.
-## "Ethical" Licenses
+## Ethical Licenses
+
+<p class="note">Much of what I write here is a counter to <a
+href="https://medium.com/hackernoon/6-myths-about-ethical-open-source-licenses-3bfbd042b1dc">6
+myths about “ethical” open source licenses</a>.</p>
+
+These are licenses that attempt to control how one can use software based on
+the particular prejudices of the author(s). They say things like "this must not
+be used by corporations that manufacture machines for the purpose of war" or
+"this software may not be used for evil." An example is the customizable
+[Hippocratic License](https://firstdonoharm.dev/) and the [JSON
+License](https://json.org/license.html).
+
+They are, practically, only useful in the same way Copyleft licenses are
+useful. That is to say, they might [scare
+a corporation](https://lwn.net/Articles/707510/) away from using something, but
+they largely don't achieve anything actually meaningful compared to permissive
+licenses. In fact, they're more likely to create a messier open source
+ecosystem than anything else.
+
+Even if a corporation is scared away from a particular piece of software by an
+ethical license, it's typically not much trouble for them to make their own,
+proprietary version of whatever functionality they wanted. It's especially not
+that hard for the largest corporations and governments, which also tend to be
+the most evil. Except now instead of being able to benefit from common security
+improvements or bugfixes, compatibility with the functionality already
+implemented by FOSS software, and so on, they now have their own separate,
+likely siloed implementation which will have its own set of vulnerabilities and
+issues that they may or may not care about fixing to the same degree or level
+of quality as an open source implementation. [Sidenote: I'd love to find more
+examples of this to strengthen this argument.] This is the issue that
+permissive licenses avoid, and one of the stronger arguments for using such
+licenses instead.
+
+<p class="note">While I'm very much against software monocultures, I also don't
+particularly want to see a world where there are five different implementations
+of a "SQL database", for example, that all call purport to implement the SQL
+specification yet have <a
+href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL#Interoperability_and_standardization">different
+quirks and incompatibilities between them</a> such that you can't, for example,
+migrate from a proprietary SQL database to a PostgreSQL database without
+rewriting the SQL statements used in your code.</p>
+
+Not to mention that it's usually really difficult, if not impossible, to
+actually comply with many Ethical licenses. While some are written well such
+that it's pretty cut and dry what you can use the software for, others are not.
+Take this from the original JSON license for example:
-These are licenses that attempt to control how one can use software without any
-real basis in law or reality. They say things like "this must not be used by
-corporations that manufacture machines for the purpose of war" or "this
-software may not be used for evil." An example is the customizable [Hippocratic
-License](https://firstdonoharm.dev/).
+```
+The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.
+```
-They are, practically, just proprietary source-available licenses that don't
-achieve anything actually meaningful. The issues they purport to address are
-societal issues that are not fixable with a software license. It's also pretty
-easy for a corporation to just ignore the license, similar to how many use the
-GPL, but with even less backing for individual devs to fight lawsuits against
-license violators (if they even bother with that).
+who can say what is good versus what evil? This would likely be up to the
+creator of the software, but is that even enforceable? If it's not enforceable
+(many say that enforceability is not even the point), and companies are largely
+not affected by it because they can just make their own thing or ignore the
+license entirely, then what is the point? From my point of view, this is
+largely just posturing.
+
+In summary, the issues that ethical licenses purport to address are societal
+issues that are not appropriately addressed using software licensing or the
+copyright system. Plus, it's also pretty easy for a corporation to just ignore
+the license, similar to how many use the GPL, but with even less backing for
+individual devs to fight lawsuits against license violators (if they even
+bother with that).
+
+Just like with many copyleft licenses, this seems good on its face, but breaks
+down in the real world. Ethical licenses put a larger burden on individual
+developers compared to corporations while attacking a very real problem from
+the wrong angle. If you really don't want evil organizations to use your
+software, it's far more effective to [write stuff that isn't useful to them in
+the first place]().
