[HN Gopher] A reminder that you should double-check the licenses...
___________________________________________________________________
A reminder that you should double-check the licenses for software
you use
Author : serverholic
Score : 94 points
Date : 2021-03-04 18:49 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| bjt2n3904 wrote:
| You know, it wasn't too long ago that people were unpublishing
| repos because they learned ICE was using their software. There
| was a strong drive to add a code of ethics to software, and an
| attempt to make software developers liable for how people use (or
| misuse) their software.
|
| Opposition to this idea was very poorly received.
|
| What makes this any different? Are we for using OSS to try and
| drive morality, or not?
|
| (My answer is no to both accounts, for the record, and hasn't
| changed.)
| ghaff wrote:
| Codes of Ethics and licenses are somewhat orthogonal.
|
| There are various engineering codes of ethics. Without looking,
| I think both the ACM and IEEE have them. I'd observe though
| that doesn't keep engineers from working on nuclear weapons for
| example. Which one may or may not agree with.
|
| In general, I don't think the idea of ethical licenses which
| was at least a somewhat hot topic in certain circles a while
| back really was a popular idea overall. And, in any case, I
| haven't heard it come up for a while.
| bjt2n3904 wrote:
| It's like we're rediscovering morality from first principles.
|
| "Haha, look at those old fashioned religions and their quaint
| religious texts. How shocking that someone would not know how
| to behave if it weren't for some words on a page. Anyways,
| I've just submitted a pull request to update the terms on our
| code of ethics that all users are bound to adhere to. It's
| very important to use the software to advance social causes!"
| thatguy0900 wrote:
| What makes this different is that is is trying to enforce
| unpopular ethics
| airhead969 wrote:
| It's likely this license is illegal and/or unenforceable in many
| jurisdictions. Also, given the craziness contained in it, it's
| that much more certain. Probably better off avoiding lunacy in
| the first place.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| " _The Work shall not be used by any person or entity for any
| systems, activities, products, services or other uses that (i)
| lobby for, promote, or support the following activities or
| materials or (ii) that derive a majority of income from the
| following activities or materials:
|
| sex trafficking ..._"
|
| So I can use the Work for a product that does not derive _the
| majority_ of income from sex trafficking, etc.
|
| Also, what is " _excessively gory_ "? One arm chopped off ok, two
| is excessive?
|
| I wonder if they really thought this through...
| duskwuff wrote:
| > Also, what is "excessively gory"? One arm chopped off ok, two
| is excessive?
|
| Given that the licensed software is a library intended for use
| in game development, this is actually an important question!
| microtherion wrote:
| It just has to stay within the boundaries of taste set by the
| Holy Bible, e.g.:
|
| Gore:
|
| > For the indignation of the LORD is upon all nations, and his
| fury upon all their armies: he hath utterly destroyed them, he
| hath delivered them to the slaughter. Their slain also shall be
| cast out, and their stink shall come up out of their carcases,
| and the mountains shall be melted with their blood. (Isaiah 34)
|
| Sex:
|
| > Yet she increased her whoring, remembering the days of her
| youth, when she played the whore in the land of Egypt and
| lusted after her lovers there, whose members were like those of
| donkeys, and whose issue was like that of horses. (Ezekiel 23)
|
| So, you know, as long as you go easy on the depiction of BBQ
| and shrimp, you're probably going to be OK.
| crdrost wrote:
| I mean those sorts of issues are unavoidable and would be
| discussed in a court where there would probably be some
| invocation of what "a typical person finds" offensive, as has
| happened in obscenity cases before.
|
| What I made sure to be part of my very popular answer on the
| OSS stack exchange about GPL, is a very careful perspective I
| have on this whole licensing debate. And that is, a license
| should be understood as fundamentally "about" what you are
| willing to sue over. Like, folks take a very moral view of
| licenses, what "should" you do with the software, what "can't"
| you do with it, etc., and the pragmatic statement is: you can
| do things, you just might get sued. A license is saying what
| conditions will definitely not brook a lawsuit.
|
| When you start to see licenses-as-lawsuits, the BSD and MIT
| licenses are just like "look I don't want to sue you and I
| don't want you to sue me, let's agree to not do that." The GPL
| is much more "look I don't want to sue you and I don't want you
| to sue anybody else and I would be willing to sue you to stop
| you from suing other people," which is why it is much much
| longer than those other languages, that's a much more subtle
| point.
|
| This is just saying "look I for the most part don't want to sue
| you but if I find out that you are promoting things that I find
| deeply morally offensive, such as {insert list of topics} then
| I might sue you if you're using my software for that." There's
| nothing too "not-thought-through" about this, it's just a
| matter that might have to be litigated where you say "look I
| don't personally lobby for abortion, just abortion-lobbyists
| use my platform" and some lawyers make some reasonable cases on
| both sides and some judge decides on some clarifying line as a
| result of the argument.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| " _excessively gory_ " is open to interpretation but it's a
| strange concept to allow gory but not excessively gory...
|
| On the other hand, the other point of my previous comment is
| not open to interpretation: Not the majority of income is
| fine and because they use 'or' the fact that I lobby,
| promote, or support is irrelevant and all that matters is the
| majority of income. So I can use the Work for a free app that
| promotes abortion, for example. This is permitted although
| this is contradicting what they seem to want to achieve.
| mannerheim wrote:
| I would imagine that otherwise if you happened to have a
| client who derived income from sex trafficking that would
| present a problem.
|
| Or even a client's client.
|
| E.g., Paypal might be deriving income from sex trafficking
| if a sex worker takes payment via it.
|
| Not that the rest of the license is unworkably vague, but
| that limitation at least makes some sense.
| nanoscopic wrote:
| It is extremely difficult to get adequate funding for open source
| software. The various "open source" licenses are inadequate to
| ensure any funding.
|
| The only standard licenses that in any way help to get paid for
| producing open source are the non-commercial licenses and they
| are frowned upon by the community. Why are they frowned on?
| Because companies wishing to use the software to make money don't
| want to pay for software; they just want to use it for free. They
| additionally commonly don't contribute back changes.
|
| I have begun shifting the license for all of the software I have
| created to a custom license because I want to prohibit commercial
| use by companies that can and should pay for my software, while
| still allowing commercial use freely by anyone else. As a result
| I have a license with a list of specific banned companies. It
| isn't considered "open source" because of this, but I need to
| make a living somehow.
|
| Giving away software for free doesn't pay my bills.
|
| I dislike these discussions because it usually amounts to a
| mixture of the following.
|
| 1. "Everyone should only use truly free GPL etc because it
| ensures everyone can use the software for free!"
|
| 2. Diatribe on how evil custom licenses are, usually quoting
| Stallman
|
| 3. Anything except discussion of the severe under-funding of
| heavily used and crucial open source software. Remember all the
| OpenSSL problems? Did any of you read the comments from the devs?
| They basically said "please pay us! we are broke!"
|
| 4. Mockery of people with strong religious beliefs. While I agree
| many/most/all of these people are "out there", I still think they
| should be treated respectfully and not mocked.
|
| If there is to be discussion about licenses, I'd like to see a
| serious discussion on how to simultaneously:
|
| 1. Prevent the abuse of licenses ( mainly by large software
| companies )
|
| 2. Enable free and open usage by all non license abusers
|
| 3. Ensure developers get paid for their work
| davidfstr wrote:
| If you suppress any knee jerk reaction you might have against
| religious associations in the preamble, the actual restrictions
| in the "Permitted Uses" section seem fairly reasonable to me, if
| not with more moral restrictions than usual:
|
| https://github.com/katharostech/ldtk-rs/blob/master/LICENSE....
|
| Most OSes have a license restricting use in nuclear power plants.
| This license adds similar restrictions like "cannot use in
| adtech". :)
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| The main problem with this is that it misrepresents itself as
| an "Open Source" license, while not actually being Open Source.
|
| People can write and use a license with any restrictions they
| want; there are plenty of proprietary licenses out there. I
| hope such licenses don't get _used_ or _propagated_ by anyone
| else, but people are still free to write them. But it would be
| especially problematic if people use code under such a license,
| or worse, put new code under such a license, while _thinking_
| they 're using an Open Source license.
| jamesrr39 wrote:
| This reminds me of the original JSON parse/stringify license,
| which stated
|
| > The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil
|
| This sounds all good and well, and in theory is great, but in
| practice how does this work? Who defines what is "Good", and
| what is "Evil".
|
| Admittedly this license is much more targeted but there are a
| few ambiguous ones:
|
| > sexually suggestive or explicit images, artwork, or any other
| media
|
| the understanding of what is explicit varies wildly between
| different cultures across the world; which understanding is
| applicable here? Can an art gallery/auction house that sells
| lots of portraits use this software? Does it depend where the
| art gallery is located geographically (and what if it has many
| sites around the world)?
|
| > mass surveillance and/or stealing of private information
|
| What counts as surveillance? For example, can I use my software
| to track where you as a user go? I guess not. But then what if
| I then say it's for a "rent a bike" service, that has a
| partnership with the local city, which uses that data to figure
| out where to build cyclepaths?
|
| I'm not saying that the objectives the license is trying to
| achieve aren't worthy goals (and perhaps the example use cases
| I gave have nothing to do with the project). I just think that
| the practical situation ends up being more complicated in the
| end than writers of the license intend.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| Or used in sexually suggestive content, or used in any way to
| limit workers, or used for violence (except for public good)
| or...
| airhead969 wrote:
| _Every Sperm is Sacred_
|
| https://youtu.be/fUspLVStPbk
| thepangolino wrote:
| Is that a variation for he Apple iTunes license that prohibits me
| from using apps to build nuclear weapons?
| lainga wrote:
| Reminds me of SQLite and the Rule of St. Benedict.
| https://sqlite.org/codeofethics.html
| tomrod wrote:
| Apatheist here. Behavioral rules are fine. I itch when
| expectations are laid down to sacrifice moral compasses to
| unseen agenc(ies) and unproven agents.
| pgeorgi wrote:
| With the difference that sqlite's code of ethics applies to the
| (more or less closed set of) sqlite developers while that
| license applies to whoever wants to use the product - and small
| libraries (such as ldtk-rs) quickly sneak in somewhere,
| potentially creating lots of pain down the road.
|
| So that "reminder" seems appropriate and package managers that
| download arbitrary cruft should have a license acceptance field
| somewhere to reject anything that's incompatible.
| butt_hugger wrote:
| Wild that software that was developed for guided missile
| destroyers has " Do not murder. ", " Love your enemies. ", "
| Hate no one. " etc. in their Code of Ethics.
| HideousKojima wrote:
| >No one is required to follow The Rule, to know The Rule, or
| even to think that The Rule is a good idea. The Founder of
| SQLite believes that anyone who follows The Rule will live a
| happier and more productive life, but individuals are free to
| dispute or ignore that advice if they wish.
|
| >The founder of SQLite and all current developers have
| pledged to follow the spirit of The Rule to the best of their
| ability. They view The Rule as their promise to all SQLite
| users of how the developers are expected to behave. This is a
| one-way promise, or covenant. In other words, the developers
| are saying: "We will treat you this way regardless of how you
| treat us."
|
| Nothing wrong with having an ideal to strive for, even if you
| aren't always living up to it.
| hermitcrab wrote:
| >The Katharos License is based on the premise that the full 66
| books of the Holy Bible are 100% true
|
| Even the bits that contradict each other?
| davidfstr wrote:
| Seems reasonable to me that if a prospective dependency has a
| license that isn't automatically tagged as a common license type
| that you be expected to actually read the license. This seems
| like basic standard of practice.
| loloquwowndueo wrote:
| Lol. " The Katharos License is based on the premise that the full
| 66 books of the Holy Bible are 100% true and inspired by God and
| that He alone is the ultimate authority for what is good and
| just."
|
| Are there legal implications of this premise being false? God is
| imaginary https://godisimaginary.com/.
|
| Also the bible is ok with stuff such as slavery, can I use the
| software to promote slavery?
| airhead969 wrote:
| Slavery is explicitly excluded. It doesn't say anything about
| indentured servitude or underpaid/overworked wage slavery
| though.
| 1123581321 wrote:
| Can the title please be changed to something descriptive like
| "The Katharos License v0.1.0"?
| serverholic wrote:
| I don't want people to think I wrote the license. Also, the
| purpose of this post is more general than this specific
| license. I feel the current title is appropriately general.
| Raed667 wrote:
| I would love see someone build a pornographic themed game using
| this project just to see if such a licence can be enforced.
| faho wrote:
| So this claims the bible as the source of truth yet can't be
| allowed to produce it as it contains sexually suggestive
| material.
|
| "Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts
| satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her
| love"
|
| (proverbs 5:19)
| grawprog wrote:
| Which is really odd, because then it gives the full list of
| prohibited uses outlined in the license and none of them really
| have anything to do with the bible at all save one that tends
| to be pushed by bible folks and in fact, bans many things
| advocated by the bible, like slavery.
|
| >sex trafficking - human trafficking
|
| - slavery
|
| - indentured servitude
|
| - warfare
|
| - weapons manufacturing - war crimes
|
| - violence ( except when required to protect public safety )
|
| - weapons of mass destruction
|
| - sexually suggestive or explicit images, artwork, or any other
| media
|
| - excessively gory and/or violent images, artwork, or any other
| media
|
| - abortion - murder - mass surveillance and/or stealing of
| private information
|
| - hate speech or discrimination based on age, gender, gender
| identity, race, sexuality, religion, nationality
|
| >The Work shall not be used by any person, entity, product,
| service or other use that (i) lobbies against, discourages, or
| frustrates the following activities or (ii) that derives a
| majority of income from actions that discourage, or frustrate
| the following activities:
|
| -peaceful assembly and association (including worker
| associations)
|
| -democratic processes
| Robin_Message wrote:
| Not a supporter or otherwise of this particular license, but
| I think I could give Bible references for most of these (not
| giving chapter and verse but trust me if you don't recognise
| it!):
|
| - sex trafficking
|
| Sodom and Gomorrah
|
| - human trafficking
|
| - slavery
|
| - indentured servitude
|
| Neither slave nor free in Christ Jesus.
|
| - warfare
|
| - weapons manufacturing - war crimes
|
| - violence ( except when required to protect public safety )
|
| - weapons of mass destruction
|
| They will beat their spears into ploughshares and swords into
| pruning hooks.
|
| - sexually suggestive or explicit images, artwork, or any
| other media
|
| And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out
|
| - excessively gory and/or violent images, artwork, or any
| other media
|
| - abortion - murder
|
| Thou shalt not kill
|
| - mass surveillance and/or stealing of private information
|
| ??? The Bible does say little on mass surveillance for some
| reason.
|
| - hate speech or discrimination based on age, gender, gender
| identity, race, sexuality, religion, nationality
|
| Has no-one condemned you? Then neither do I.
|
| -peaceful assembly and association (including worker
| associations)
|
| Every day they continued to meet together in the temple
| courts. (But I can't give a reference for unions!)
|
| -democratic processes
|
| Give to Caesar what is Caesar's.
| hannob wrote:
| This is why some people have fought hard to have some standards
| what is an acceptable FOSS license.
|
| Things would be much harder if we wouldn't have such standards.
| Imagine a software ecosystem with a wild variety of licensing
| terms with all kinds of crazy clauses.
|
| Remember that the next time some company with a deceptive "it's
| not open source, but we surely want it to sound like open source"
| license comes along. I was downvoted plenty of times trying to
| argue for more honesty from those players.
| bjt2n3904 wrote:
| > Imagine a software ecosystem with a wild variety of licensing
| terms with all kinds of crazy clauses.
|
| People are dunking on trying to figure out what is considered
| "excessively gory".
|
| What does "welcoming and inclusive language" mean?
| davidfstr wrote:
| No license is going to satisfy everyone in all contexts.
|
| For example I cannot use GPL at work (based on my own rules as
| team lead) but am open to it in personal projects.
|
| And other folks would consider having something NOT GPL
| licensed to be suspect.
|
| It is not possible to provide a uniform license that will be
| acceptable to all in all circumstances.
| jpmoral wrote:
| I don't think they meant that there should be One True Open-
| Source License but rather that open-source projects should
| pick one of the 'standard' ones (GPL, MIT, etc.) instead of
| writing their own.
| davidfstr wrote:
| Well, if by "open source" you mean broadly any software
| available whose code is viewable on the internet, you're
| essentially advocating for no projects that use
| "nonstandard" licenses to exist.
|
| That seems like a waste if there would be otherwise be
| projects around with a nonstandard license that was
| acceptable to a subset of users.
|
| For example the CPython interpreter (the official
| interpreter for the Python language) does not use a
| standard license. Would you not want Python to exist?
| mannerheim wrote:
| Any permissive software license (which it seems CPython's
| is) is broadly interchangeable with any other, and can be
| used with both other permissive licenses and copyleft
| licenses like the GPL. That can't happen with any license
| that places restrictions on what it can be used for.
| mannerheim wrote:
| Even the hardest core Stallmanites aren't unwilling to use
| BSD/MIT-licensed software, nor Stallman himself. In contrast,
| these sorts of licenses that restrict what the software can
| be used for are unequivocally condemned by the FSF.
| HideousKojima wrote:
| Stallman put it best many years ago:
|
| >I've stated some of my views about other political issues,
| about activities that are or aren't unjust. Your views might
| differ, and that's precisely the point. If we accepted programs
| with usage restrictions as part of a free operating system such
| as GNU, people would come up with lots of different usage
| restrictions. There would be programs banned for use in meat
| processing, programs banned only for pigs, programs banned only
| for cows, and programs limited to kosher foods. Someone who
| hates spinach might write a program allowing use for processing
| any vegetable except spinach, while a Popeye fan might allow
| use only for spinach. There would be music programs allowed
| only for rap music, and others allowed only for classical
| music.
|
| >The result would be a system that you could not count on for
| any purpose. For each task you wish to do, you'd have to check
| lots of licenses to see which parts of your system are off
| limits for that task.
|
| >How would users respond to that? I think most of them would
| use proprietary systems. Allowing any usage restrictions
| whatsoever in free software would mainly push users towards
| nonfree software. Trying to stop users from doing something
| through usage restrictions in free software is as ineffective
| as pushing on an object through a long, soft, straight piece of
| spaghetti.
|
| His words are just as valid about this license as they are
| about the various "ethical open source" licenses that have
| proliferated in recent years, whether they be of the "don't let
| Amazon host our code" variety or the "totally not a thinly
| veiled vehicle for injecting social justice politics into
| software" sort.
| tehjoker wrote:
| Stallman is right but also he betrays his liberal leanings in
| that he accepts that it is okay for private profit makers to
| exploit whatever resources you produce. If licenses were only
| useful for personal, school, or research without a specific
| license from the publisher, that's not the end of the world
| and comports with the value system of the publisher. Removing
| the means of production from the marketplace is an
| anarchist/socialist idea.
|
| However, for something as fundamental as an operating system
| (so long as it is a commodity), it does make sense to have a
| liberalized base of restrictions on use.
|
| Injecting social justice politics is fine. Politics are
| present everywhere. People should express their opinions and
| live their lives in accordance with them. The US in
| particular has an obsession with pretending there is such a
| thing as apolitical when it comes to economic activity.
| HideousKojima wrote:
| >Stallman is right but also he betrays his liberal leanings
| in that he accepts that it is okay for private profit
| makers to exploit whatever resources you produce. If
| licenses were only useful for personal, school, or research
| without a specific license from the publisher, that's not
| the end of the world and comports with the value system of
| the publisher. Removing the means of production from the
| marketplace is an anarchist/socialist idea.
|
| Which leads to fun situations where you have to determine
| what is or isn't "commercial use." Truly free and open
| licenses make that a non-issue, meaning software using them
| are more likely to become widely adopted, which is the
| entire point of the FOSS movement.
|
| >Injecting social justice politics is fine. Politics are
| present everywhere. People should express their opinions
| and live their lives in accordance with them.
|
| People are free to believe whatever they like, but creating
| (largely legally unenforceable) licenses to do so only
| hurts the adoption of free software (and helps large
| commercial entities developing proprietary software). See,
| for example, Bruce Perens's comments on the Berkeley SPICE
| license, which explicitly disallowed use by the police of
| South Africa. Even after Apartheid ended the police of
| South Africa were barred from use:
|
| https://perens.com/2019/09/23/sorry-ms-ehmke-the-
| hippocratic...
|
| Any license that places restrictions on what software can
| be used for makes the entire free software world a
| minefield.
| tehjoker wrote:
| I would agree with that. I guess that's the actual
| struggle: get people to agree that preserving the
| ecosystem as a whole is more important than anything
| else. I love free software but I 100% can understand
| differing perspectives.
|
| Commercial use is pretty easy to understand though: are
| you making money in excess of costs and are not non-
| profit? Commercial use.
|
| I suppose there are cases where a non-profit can violate
| the spirit of the law. That's for the courts to decide or
| you can make it clear by saying non-profits are okay no
| matter what.
| mannerheim wrote:
| Ignoring the ambiguity of commercial use for which CC-BY-
| NC licenses have long been criticised for, there are very
| obvious reasons why they don't work for software.
|
| Let's say we have a non-commercial photo-editing
| application, call it NCIMP. You're a hobbyist
| photographer, so your buddy wants to pay you to take
| wedding photos for him. That's a commercial use, right?
| Better get that commercial license... which you might not
| be able to get if there are hundreds of contributors to
| NCIMP and they don't have any organisation to whom
| they're assigning copyright.
|
| So from the end user perspective, either you're paying an
| organisation for a commercial license, in which case it's
| not that different from just getting a license for
| Photoshop (sure, you'd have to pirate Photoshop to get it
| for free, but they only really go after commercial users
| for copyright infringement anyway and they mainly rely on
| employees to snitch), or you've sunk time into learning
| how to use a photo-editing application to develop skills
| you can't even accept compensation for... At which point,
| you may as well just have learned how to use Photoshop to
| begin with; if you're starting to learn photography even
| as a hobby, why choose to either limit yourself to never
| being able to take a photography gig or have to relearn
| new software for the same task? Even if you don't plan on
| doing any paid work, it doesn't make sense to use it
| unless the software is much better, which it probably
| won't be if it's being developed by exclusively hobbyist
| photographers who themselves can't use it for any
| professional work.
| mmastrac wrote:
| Cargo should have an "acceptable licenses" field in the project
| toml with a sensible default. I had to do a license audit in a
| past role and it was a pain.
|
| Mark licenses that "require further attention".
| jacobmischka wrote:
| Would be nice if built in, but cargo-deny is a neat project by
| Embark that can do this:
| https://github.com/EmbarkStudios/cargo-deny
| mmastrac wrote:
| Ah yeah, that seems useful, thanks.
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| I would love to see the functionality of cargo-deny built
| into cargo, and a sensible set of defaults added that prevent
| people from accidentally using proprietary code like this
| (while still allowing people to use proprietary code if they
| knowingly choose to, as well as allowing local first-party
| code by default so this doesn't stymie people's own internal
| development).
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| It already effectively does by having well-known identifiers
| for acceptable values for the license field (eg "MIT") while
| these off-the-beaten track licenses require a path to a
| license. On crates.io, the license would be displayed as
| "other" instead of Apache, MIT, etc.
| revskill wrote:
| There should be a short summarization of a LICENSE file, like
| RECAP_LICENSE, then all users will read and understand it
| thoroughly.
|
| All of LICENSE file i've seen so far is lacking of a short recap.
| robocat wrote:
| https://tldrlegal.com/ is pretty good at summarising licenses.
| It doesn't have a summary for this one yet though.
| rurban wrote:
| But then you would miss the bible is truth part.
| airhead969 wrote:
| I honestly thought I was reading the side of a Dr. Bronner's
| soap bottle in the shower.
| revskill wrote:
| Just like every book/chapter has a
| summarization/table_of_content ?
| altgans wrote:
| Doesn't this license defeat itself?
|
| > The Katharos License is based on the premise that the full 66
| books of the Holy Bible are 100% true and inspired by God and
| that He alone is the ultimate authority for what is good and
| just.
|
| vs.
|
| > hate speech or discrimination based on age, gender, gender
| identity, race, sexuality, religion, nationality
|
| Just think about "Thou shalt have no other gods before me".
| Chilinot wrote:
| That's not the only contradiction either, the bible contains
| plenty of rules on how to manage your slaves as well. And a
| plethora of other stuff in direct violation of the license
| rules. Like stoning women for example.
| vesinisa wrote:
| The Bible also contains passages calling homosexuality
| "shameful", among others. And it's hard to think of a book more
| discriminating by gender:
|
| "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over
| a man; rather, she is to remain quiet."
|
| -1 Timothy 2:12
| spijdar wrote:
| Well, you _could_ argue that was directed at the Hebrew people
| under Moses, and not a directive to everyone everywhere. It 's
| not contradictory to say not to discriminate against people's
| different religions while forbidding polytheism within your own
| religion.
| HideousKojima wrote:
| Plenty of modern Christians believe the Law of Moses was
| superseded by Christ. Acts 15 even has a list of the parts of
| the law that the apostles told members of the church that
| they were still expected to follow, but even this isn't
| straightforward thanks to stuff like Paul's comments on
| eating food offered to idols.
| actionowl wrote:
| I can't help but be reminded about this open source software
| license comic: https://burntsushi.net/stuff/wtfpl-strip.jpg
| snicksnak wrote:
| This is totally not usable for any serious project.
| alexfromapex wrote:
| Especially at startups where you don't know if they were ever
| truly vetted
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| Poe's law applies. A software licences job isn't to encode
| "morality". It just there to specify what rights are being
| granted.
| BugsJustFindMe wrote:
| > _With the Katharos License we want to promote the openness,
| sharing, and collaboration that is common in the Open Source
| community, while at the same time protecting the people who may
| otherwise become victims of the destructive application of our
| shared works. We want the works that we share to be uplifting and
| helpful and we want them to be used to benefit people._
|
| So adtech, spam farms, and extortion are A-OK, but no genitals.
| Channeling my inner Olsen, "You got it, dude."
| WrtCdEvrydy wrote:
| > violence ( except when required to protect public safety ) >
| abortion
|
| I mean, if a cop kills someone, isn't an abortion of their
| children. I'm pretty high right now so I'm not sure.
| tehjoker wrote:
| The "except when required to protect public safety" clause
| renders that section inoperative because every political
| movement, army, and police force that uses violence will
| always characterize it as defensive and necessary no matter
| how obscene and criminal it is. That said, defensive struggle
| is a real thing, but difficult to enforce via license or even
| via Article II of the UN Charter.
| mannerheim wrote:
| The first two could qualify as 'mass surveillance and/or
| stealing of private information' depending how liberally that's
| interpreted. Extortion is already illegal, anyway (but then
| again, so are many of the prohibited activities in this
| license, although I suppose it's not illegal to simply
| 'support' them as this license prohibits).
| satokema_work wrote:
| its not stealing if people are giving that information out
| for free or if it's just metadata, nothing immoral there
| airhead969 wrote:
| Isn't that the Office Space crime rationalization?
| mannerheim wrote:
| Could be mass surveillance, depending on how liberally
| that's interpreted.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| > its not stealing if people are giving that information
| out for free
|
| If I leave a pie to cool on my windowsill and you take it
| it's still stealing even if there was no formal agreement
| or security measures in place to protect the pie.
|
| Adtech is kind of like that. If I give a calendar app
| access to my contacts I certainly don't expect it to take
| that information and use it for tracking, targeting, and
| marketing purposes as well. For me to "give" you that
| information for free, you'd have to ask for it honestly.
| And yet Facebook - an ad tech company - has been fighting
| this kind of consent in the next iOS patch tooth-and-nail.
| a1369209993 wrote:
| > If I leave a pie to cool on my windowsill and you take
| it it's still stealing even if there was no formal
| agreement or security measures in place to protect the
| pie.
|
| This is a excellent analogy, thank you.
| vkou wrote:
| Extortion is illegal, and yet, 'mugshot' businesses continue
| to operate in the open.
| gambiting wrote:
| Not to mention all sort of "review" websites where your
| company is suddenly flooded with extremely negative reviews
| and you get a helpful call from the website owner being
| like "hey, I see you got a lot of bad reviews, but don't
| worry, for only $5000 you can get our premium membership
| that lets you get them removed".
|
| Ask me how I know.
| stareatgoats wrote:
| How do you know?
| gambiting wrote:
| Because it happened to my company. A "review your
| employer" website went from having few reviews of us to
| literally having few thousand reviews in a week(which in
| itself was a dead giweaway as we had maybe 50 employees
| total with 100 over the lifetime of the company), all
| extremely negative, but very simple and vague in content
| so you couldn't make a legal case against any one of
| them.
|
| We took it to a lawyer but he said that it's clearly
| blackmail but it would be extremely hard to get any kind
| of judgement against it. We just ignored it and that
| company eventually folded and disappeared and the website
| with them, but I'm pretty sure it made hiring somewhat
| more difficult for a while.
| tomxor wrote:
| I think it's meant as a joke... you need to read a bit further
| before you hit the "oh this is _supposed_ to be complete BS"
| part:
|
| > The definition of what is "good" can be considered highly
| subjective [...blah blah] the definition of what is "good" and
| "pure", come from the Word of God, The Holy Bible. The Katharos
| License is based on the premise that the full 66 books of the
| Holy Bible are 100% true and inspired by God and that He alone
| is the ultimate authority for what is good and just.
|
| Says it all really.
| [deleted]
| ViViDboarder wrote:
| It's not. This is on their website linked from the GitHub
| profile:
|
| > Katharos Technology is a team that wants to make video
| games and other content and technology to the glory of God.
| serverholic wrote:
| Not a joke actually. Here's their About Us page
| https://katharostech.com/about-us
| rebuilder wrote:
| It's going to be an interesting day in court if this license ever
| gets litigated over.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-03-04 23:02 UTC)