and like, i get the argument that that's not a good thing to have in a license. terms like "good" and "evil" don't belong in a legal document. but like... rather than make that extremely good point, the FSF actually says, more or less, "well, if you're not allowed to do evil with it then it's not a very Freedom license, sorry". thus basically revealing the moral bankruptcy of the concept of "freedom" in the abstract
and this is wild to me! because these are the same people responsible for the GPL, the license that's insufficiently "free" for corporate types because it imposes responsibilities! but it does reveal the ugliness underlying the philosophy they're working with. it's more "i should be able to do whatever i want and you should have to let me do whatever i want" than "you should have a social responsibility to make information freely available"
@alice "This is a restriction on usage and thus conflicts with freedom 0 ["the freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose"]. The restriction might be unenforcible, but we cannot presume that. Thus, the license is nonfree."
@kinsey and every year, IBM asks Doug Crockford for an exemption, because they cannot guarantee that their customers won't do anything evil…
…you know, like… the Nazis did, with lots of help from IBM.
hah… funny that, i've watched mr JSON give this talk in person, and i didn't make ⬆️ connection back then.
@kinsey it’s utterly bonkers. It privileges one narrow definition of freedom over every other interest.
There are lots of interesting arguments to be made about freedom and ethical licensing, but here you are just being polemical.
Instead of pointing to a non-free license you wouldn't get behind yourself, how about an example that is:
a) Likely to be enforceable.
b) Unlikely to be abused against marginalised people.
Free software is just a clever legal hack to set the current legal system on itself in order to protect people who use computers. It's not a morally superior model for fixing society's ills.
The fact that it is struggling these days to even do the first thing (protect user rights) is not something that makes me wildly optimistic about expecting licenses to do even more.
@kinsey I find you criticizing that approach to equality in freedom inherently evil. I know plenty of people that have done evil things in their life and have some around for the better, and do they not deserve to be treated as good if they repaid for their faults? Please stop treating those issues as black and white, it will get us nowhere
@kinsey can json be used with tor if it's used for human trafficking and other black market deals, when it helps thousands of people avoid being trafficked, tracked and otherwise spied on? where do we draw the line when we can judge the use of the software as evil? or maybe should the law actually deal with those evil things instead of executing license based disputes based on how evil the act performed using this software was, seems convoluted for the purpose
@kinsey Free software's lack of judgement over some of those issues contributes to the solution instead of generating more problems, please stop criticizing it for something it absolutely should NEVER touch
@kinsey yeah, no part of this good.
The clause in the JSON licence is a joke. A legal instrument is a stupid forum for that.
It absolutely is non-free under the FSF definitions (and, indeed, is not open-source under the OSI definitions)
That's a problem with the current conception of free-software (and maybe open-source software, although that's not an ethical movement)
Considering that nearly all the worst people in the history of mankind pretended to embodies the Good and that their opponents were Evil, I guess the FSF's position is not only factual, but probably very reasonable...
@LienRag oh i agree that it's a bad thing to put in a license, just, their logic for why it's bad is... odd (i have some discussion of that in a thread on this toot)
@LienRag it's implied. the whole premise of their organization's existence is "freedom is good, lack of freedom is bad"
@lesbianhacker @kinsey 1 of the 4 s/w freedom principles is that the user can use the software however they want with no limitations. There is a "do no harm" license out there that requires users to conform to the UN's definition of human rights, but it's not #freesoftware & in fact it's not even #opensource b/c open source rules also state no limits on usage.
@aktivismoEstasMiaLuo yes, that was covered in the thread (and I boosted all of it)
Free and Open Source is a farce
@ben thanks for linking this to me! that part was great and i decided to start from the beginning too and i really like this guy lmao
@kinsey ::military jingo voice, stars and stripes koteka in full view:: fuck yeah we're using it to help us, the good guys, kick some serious [slur] ass 🇺🇸💣🦅
@kinsey The most bizarre part of this is that by the same logic, their viral licenses are absolutely nonfree 🤔
@kinsey that reminds me of the old BSD (but not for nuclear power plant) license that's also considered non-free. The Fedora Project's licensing team spent some time trying to get Sun/Oracle to relicense some of their code IIRC.
Apparently the license was chosen not because of moral reasons but because of a worry about potential liability though.
@kinsey Not only the FSF says this. It is not approved by OSI either. So, to me it is clear that this is indeed a non-free license.
Cybrespace is an instance of Mastodon, a social network based on open web protocols and free, open-source software. It is decentralized like e-mail.