After the open-source developers Seth Vargo found Chef recently and ICE (US Immigration and Customs Enforcement) signed a contract for deletion library protest , withdrew his open source project from Chef Sugar Chef DevOps in. Later Chef company said next year not to renew the contract. But things could not be reached full length, which raises concerns about the ethical dimension of open source. There are actors play slogan #NoTechForICE, and has drawn up a Hippocratic License , required to add to the open source license in moral terms.
Hippocratic License built on modifications to the MIT license, the authors introduce the license Coraline Ada Ehmke "specifically prohibits the use of open source software harm others." She also called for changes in the Open Source Definition (The Open Source Definition) in the fifth and sixth two "non-discrimination" clause.
Ehmke said a long time, the consequences of software developers has caused the code that I have written with detachment, but in fact, "the software we have created a real and lasting impact on the world we live in." She believes that politics and tangled software, all technical in nature are political, so-called neutrality does not exist. If these conditions harm to others, what do we do? To this end, she hopes to be able to regulate open source license.
Open Source Initiative (Open Source Initiative, OSI) quickly refuted Ehmke approach. They wrote on Twitter: "Introduction Hippocratic Licence may make some people think that the license is open source license, distribute, according to Hippocratic Licence software is open source software, but neither, we ask you to modify the language to eliminate. confusion. "
Ehmke hit back: "OSI and FSF (Free Software Foundation) is not 'What is open source' and 'What is Free Software' we are the true arbiter.". Then she added that the current revenue structure can not prohibit their labor organizations such as the use of the ICE, this is not an open source license, but the open source issues.
First quarrel on Twitter aside, let's talk about whether ethics can be incorporated into open source license.
This is nothing new things. For example, in 2009 Exception General Public License (eGPL) had to try to play a role in the GPLv2, such as the military attempted to ban a user who "exceptional" use its code. Ultimately failed.
Other licenses such as JSON license and the like are also little known that it marked "the software used in the good, not evil," but no one enforced.
This year along with Anti-996 protocol 996.ICU movement can be said to occur based on the moral level. Specializing in open source software licensed lawyer Heather Meeker believes that "it has achieved an important objective, that is to draw attention to the matter." But as the open-source license, there is also a problem, because "license in moral terms can not be used to force the licensee, from a legal point of view, they are more an expression of opinion, rather than being used to control effective legal tool licensee behavior. "
About Open Source License, the open source legal expert, Columbia University law professor Eben Mogren (Eben Moglen) pointed out that, according to the FSF's definition of free software, licenses moral conduct which violates the relevant requirements of the Freedom zero provision. Freedom zero rights for any purpose that is running the program, which is in first place in the four freedoms in power.
Top technology law firm Gesmer Updegrove and open source legal expert founding partner Andrew added, "In broad terms, the licensor may contain any conditions he wants in the license. However, this limit can not be included in claim compliance OSI open Source definition document. "
Specifically, he went back to the above-mentioned open source defined in Article 6 (The Open Source Definition) in the "areas of non-discrimination": The license must not restrict anyone from using the program in a specific field.
Andrew explained that the reason for this is "prohibited" does not allow the use of open source software in business' behavior. We want commercial users to join our community, rather than being excluded from the community. " By the way, this is one of the core differences between the free and open source software.
"You can develop 'banned' terms and require the licensee at any downstream license are included in similar terms," but in reality it is difficult to implement. Andrew cited an example: "Suppose published in the usual way open source code, and soon there will be a lot of copies, and you almost can not trace all copies if the code is tied to someone you think is harmful commercial products, you. no way of knowing. "
Executive director of Software Freedom Protection Organization (Software Freedom Conservancy) Karen M. Sandler also put forward their views, in his view, to selectively retain the free software is not appropriate, but these moral license will lead to implementation problems. More importantly, they can also achieve the same goal by other means. Sandler is recommended to establish a moral society as a developer, or by participating in the political process to forbid wrongdoing.
For the included software license in moral terms, Sandler again emphasize that this is not so practical, after all, "a hammer can be used as both building tool can also be used as a murder weapon."
Source: ZDNet