On Evils in Software Licensing
On Evils in Software Licensing
lgug2z.com
On Evils in Software Licensing
6 comments
-
"We know that there is a clear relationship between corporations which expend focused energy explicitly and implicitly promoting the use of Open Source Initiative-approved licenses to independent developers, and the genocide being committed in Palestine."
"The Freedom to refuse"
This article is bonkers. It manages to twist the Free Software Movement, that I would argue is intrinsically radically anti-capitalist, to be somehow pro capitalist, because free labour. Completely ignoring the whole mutual benefit and means of production held in common part of the deal. It tries to paint restricions of who is allowed to use the software (breaking F(L)OSS definitions) as a "Freedom", the freedom to "refuse". Actual use of Orwellian phrasing there. And then somehow: Open source = Siding against Palestine.
-
And then somehow: Open source = Siding against Palestine.
This is the most ridiculous part, if they ever try to enforce the license against someone the definition of evil is going to be decided by a court. In that context a humanitarian organization using your software to help Palestinians is more likely to be condemned than a military contractor that kills Palestinians.
-
the article doesn't mention the Free Software Movement even once.
Also the article is making a point that you don't need to side for genocide to enable a genocide. That's the whole point.
-
The ideas we explore in concrete work should be informed by what open source licensing proponents seek to restrict (the individual freedom to refuse), the tools they employ (software licensing), the language they attempt to monopolize (“Free as in Freedom”), and what the established systems and cultural norms do in practice
The article doesnt use the wording "Free Software Movement" it uses "open source licensing proponents" which includes the Free Software Movement.
As for the genocide per default part: Its nonsense to believe that if open source didnt exist or was different that it would somehow lead to less genocide.
-
-
-
This argument in this article is poor. An analogy would be:
"Because donating free food to the poor might feed future criminals, we should no longer provide free food."
6 comments