Post B5jc5wcB2prF0ykiiO by futureisfoss@fosstodon.org
(DIR) More posts by futureisfoss@fosstodon.org
(DIR) Post #B5jbybZGtkBFiCtTW4 by larsmb@mastodon.online
0 likes, 0 repeats
I love how the #FSF unerringly comes out in support against anyone trying to reduce the harm software is used for and maybe not hand it to murderers."It's only free if you don't try to stop anyone else from using it to kill people via the license terms" is the most US take *ever*.(Not that OSI is different.)That's how you end up with #Palantir as a major FOSS sponsor, I guess.https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/rail-are-nonfree-and-unethical#OpenSource #FreeSoftware
(DIR) Post #B5jbybpDwQwOVgMDNg by larsmb@mastodon.online
0 likes, 0 repeats
I'm aware that that raises immensely complex and complicated questions.And, sure, it'd be nicer if there was some standardized grouping, because everyone cooking their own would ... not be great.But calling the attempt "unethical"?That's just bonkers.And the companies that support this stance on FOSS terms?I *guarantee* you their commercial offering T&Cs limit what you are permitted to use their services for.Heaven forbid someone does it to *them* tho.
(DIR) Post #B5jbyc2h8LiTBSeyNU by larsmb@mastodon.online
1 likes, 0 repeats
The FSF/OSI are, in my mind, often committed not to a better world, but to one in which all software is "free" or at least "open".The two worlds overlap, but are not the same picture.
(DIR) Post #B5jbycBua55Ze2yKkC by mirabilos@toot.mirbsd.org
0 likes, 0 repeats
@larsmb OSI recently lost even that part of the plot 😿
(DIR) Post #B5jc2N5afhTdxuo4jw by mirabilos@toot.mirbsd.org
0 likes, 0 repeats
@larsmb as did Creative Commons, for that matter
(DIR) Post #B5jc5wHcHHPXzD8IfQ by Sweetshark@social.tchncs.de
0 likes, 0 repeats
@larsmb They are committed to a better world, but their scope is limited to what can be enforced with a software license. To not understand those limits is like sending police officers to stop crime -- into active warzones.
(DIR) Post #B5jc5wcB2prF0ykiiO by futureisfoss@fosstodon.org
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Sweetshark @larsmb This is from that article linked above:> Most, if not all, activities prohibited in RAIL are already illegal in most countries. If some people or organizations are not stopped by the law as enforced by the government, why would they yield to a copyright holder threatening to sue them over breach of a license? Restricting uses of existing software would also not stop the wealthy from developing their own software and locking users in with proprietary interfaces.
(DIR) Post #B5jc5wxRlks64whhrs by larsmb@mastodon.online
0 likes, 0 repeats
@futureisfoss @Sweetshark Sure. But using software to kill people is indeed lawful in most countries if the military does it. Palantir is legal. X is legal.Does that prevent someone immoral from breaking the terms? No. That's a far cry from insisting even the attempt is unethical.
(DIR) Post #B5jc5xE6loCOucV0q0 by Sweetshark@social.tchncs.de
0 likes, 0 repeats
@larsmb @futureisfoss That is not really a counter argument: Palantir/X cannot be made illegal by a license. National law trumps license terms.
(DIR) Post #B5jc5xQW1g7jX6IvB2 by larsmb@mastodon.online
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Sweetshark @futureisfoss Sure. And you don't have to grant them a license either. Or insist they must be allowed to use it. I'd rather pick a "non-free" license than have Palantir as a user. I think that's a valid position to have. Can they ignore it? Sure.The FSF calling that "unethical", is, well, telling.
(DIR) Post #B5jc5xZ1W2vfxUHiRE by Sweetshark@social.tchncs.de
0 likes, 1 repeats
@larsmb @gentoo Adding licensing terms while being aware that they will not be enforced as intented is careless: They still will be enforced in ways _not_ intended -- so all you can practically achieve is a loss. That is ... maybe not "unethical", but certainly hazardous. If you think they wont be abused, you certainly lack the imagination & ruthlessness of lawyers and legislators in precisely those environments that you would care about.(*)Get over the fixation with licenses. FLOSS licences are great to limit the damages that _other licenses themselves_ might cause. For creating a better world _beyond_ licenses, dont abuse licenses. They are not the right tool.(*) First use would be to forbid the "terror org Antifa" use of fediverse, OTOH Palantir gets a national security exception.
(DIR) Post #B5jc5yGysc5i9oqoxE by Sweetshark@social.tchncs.de
0 likes, 0 repeats
@larsmb @gentoo From the FSF: "However, they do not require anything that is really necessary for users to control their computing done with machine learning, including: *complete training inputs* [...] the source code of software [...]. Thus, RAILed machine learning [...] most probably will be [...] unethical. Use restrictions do not prevent these licenses from being used to exercise power over users."So the FSF calls them unethical not because their terms are too strong, but because those terms are _too weak_ to address the problem. That is entirely reasonable, however also more ambitious for a properly ethical license for AI models.
(DIR) Post #B5jc9Laidh41LYh2Ei by izzy@eldritch.cafe
0 likes, 1 repeats
@larsmb The FSF is fully committed to negative freedoms - the freedom from being told what you can do with your software - and completely ignores positive freedoms, the freedom from being harmed by how others use freedom. It’s a fundamentally libertarian view of what freedom is, centered around the same property rights that lead to the exploitation of the masses under capitalism.
(DIR) Post #B5l3PaBl1fmNAowZF2 by futureisfoss@fosstodon.org
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mirabilos @larsmbWhat happened with Creative Commons?
(DIR) Post #B5l3PaJuXMIja6l4wy by mirabilos@toot.mirbsd.org
0 likes, 0 repeats
@larsmb @futureisfoss full-in on "AI" including saying "yes of course you can use CC-licenced works and not attribute them"see https://evolvis.org/~tg/cc.htm for my attempt to mitigate