Why? The creators created the software, they can put any conditions they please on how others might use it. They're under no moral or legal obligation to allow people to use the fruits of their labors, except as they permit.
Marginalised communities are not protected by documents that claim to protect marginalised communities. Fat lot of good documents have ever done. What protects marginalised communities is actual tolerance of differing opinions, and actual freedom. Ditto what protects us from surveillance. Fat lot of good all the paper protections against surveillance have done. Look at what America has built! Let alone China. Once again, the problem is a knee-jerk overreaction and paranoia in the ruling class when the correct answer is tolerance. Ditto weapons. Did Afghanistan benefit from code of conducts? No, what it needed was a bulkwork of people who said "lets really stretch ourselves not to hurt people who dislike us" at a critical moment.
This license won't do what it claims. Best case, it is GPL+Fluff. Worst case, it becomes an exclusionary political tool. Ironically, it is likely that it will be wielded against marginalised communities.
What do you mean? Which definition of 'liberal' are you using?
That licence is one shard about opinion (debatable instancing of «marginalized») and fundamentally about use.
Funny you mention that page, because before posting the question «Which definition of 'liberal' are you using» I went to that very page to try to try and find an interpretation that fit the context. But nothing answered it clearly. So, that remains insufficient.
If the use of 'liberal' was meant to refer to the defence of freedom of speech, there exist a problem in the discrimination between "speech" as intended in the formula and «manipulat[ion]» as written in that licence. But was that the idea? We should not be here to guess.
* Anti-democratic (in that they privilege the copyright holders political views)
* Anti-secular/anti-religious-freedom (in that they privilege the copyright holders values and would likely exclude people based on religious values in conflict with the CoC).
* Anti-free-speech (in that they would deny access to their work based on what people say).
* Anti-market economy (in that they aren't providing a tool/service to anyone equally based on a free market).
Which isn't to say they're bad people or anything, liberalism isn't the be-all and end-all. But the GPL is a neat embodiment of some very good ideas from the liberal tradition and this ml5js library license is much less liberal than the GPL. And also worse.
It really is not. Unbounded tolerance is how free and open societies commit suicide and succumb to authoritarian regimes where intolerance is the norm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
> If they want to license their software however then good luck to them, but nonetheless attempting to encode illiberal political beliefs into a software license is the wrong direction. The GPL is exactly the right approach.
You're just asserting that refusing to help out authoritarian and outright xenophobic political movements further their goals "is the wrong approach" without any rationale or insight or argument at all.
Meanwhile, you're citing the GPL which is a highly political license.
> It really is not. Unbounded tolerance is how free and open societies commit suicide and succumb to authoritarian regimes where intolerance is the norm.
This is a non sequitur. GP placed a bound on tolerance.
> You're just asserting that refusing to help out authoritarian and outright xenophobic political movements further their goals "is the wrong approach" without any rationale or insight or argument at all.
GP can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he has asserted anything of the kind. In fact, I suspect he's somewhat opposed to the same, since he's opposed to "illiberal political beliefs" which are themselves quite aligned with "xenophobic political movements".
In any case, I think you've entirely missed the pragmatic points of the GP's post, which is that such illiberal policies are, throughout history, used against the marginalized peoples they are ostensibly intended to protect. Given your previous statement about unbounded tolerance, it feels like you should be in agreement with the GP on this point; unless you're saying we should just skip the tolerance and go straight to intolerance.
And to allow discriminating against "wrong" opinions is how intolerance becomes the norm.
Do you feel that plotting to overthrow a democracy to install a totalitarian despot while discussing political assassinations is a grey area that's up for debate whether it's "wrong" or indeed undoubtedly wrong?
I mean, considering how this very same political group killed police officers during their coup attempt, where do you personally draw the line on murder?
Now, of course, I see the problem of letting people freely talk about killing people, overthrowing the government or running concentration camps. But forbidding this kind of speech is not going to prevent it if the pull is strong enough; even worse, it's going to strengthen their narrative about oppression. Instead, it should be possible to openly discuss why this is wrong. To understand why someone has an opinion and showing him why that trade-off is not worth it is far better than trying to forbid even thinking about it.
Now, I know that our action prevention might need some form of surveillance to prevent radical groups from taking actions and, at its worst, might fail to prevent some unnecessary violence. In my opinion, though, we can have much more freedom and maybe even prevent more people from radicalizing than by trying to censor wrong thoughts.
Actually, I believe everything works out if everyone is intolerant of intolerance. That would include suicide bombers.
People need to stop imposing on others.
What would you think would work if an authoritarian political movement plagued with xenophobia wants to use your work as a key tool to start imposing on tolerant people?
Also, I think a person has a mortal obligation to allow that their political position is at least partially flawed.
(1) discriminating against marginalized communities
What does this mean? I bet I could get several different answers. Old people are marginalized by agism in tech, does this mean tech companies can't use this? How would they prove they don't marginalize old people?
(2) building tools that disingenuously manipulate public opinion
Ditto. To me this means no political party or marketing/advertising department can use this. Probably most news outlets as well.
(3) building tools of mass surveillance and prediction to repress the rights of people
Rights defined by whom? US Constitution? Right not to be offended? Rights granted by the Taliban or ISIS? Communist China?
(4) building tools that control weapons, including tools that automate the deployment, operation, and targeting of weapons.
I think most people can get on board with this one, unless we were attacked in earnest by a strong military foe.
All use of weapons and surveillance is abusive, so what you are saying "we" (who?) want is not something that I find reasonable.
No matter what you think, the authors might disagree, so you have no way of using the software in anything related to it. Worse yet, this can quickly change - the system you built that uses this software in the background might be totally fine to watch a womans shelter, but the license could be pulled any minute because the authors dislike that you also sold your product to a normal prison.
It cuts many ways.
Why? I mean, don't you believe you have a say on who you grant permission to use your intellectual property?
> Also, I think a person has a mortal obligation to allow that their political position is at least partially flawed.
This assertion makes no sense. You should not be forced to help advance anyone's goals when they are diametrically opposite to what you believe in and can be outright hostile towards you and your loved ones.
If the author of some software has a general good-faith position that others should use their software, then the conditions they associate with that software fall on a continuum from "reasonable to "unreasonable".
The MIT license is at the reasonable end. Saying "give me ten million dollars for this ROT13 algorithm" is at the unreasonable end.
When the person you replied to said:
> They can, which doesn't mean they should.
I think they were saying they personally considered the terms of the license at the "unreasonable" end. I don't disagree- saying "you can use this for now, but have to stop immediately if I or anyone I might sell this to say so" seems at least borderline unreasonable.
It certainly isn't "free software", though being wrapped in what is otherwise the Blue Oak license they're kind of hiding their non-free-ness. I think this is where I mostly take issue- it feels like the project is attempting to portray itself as a free software project, when it is not.
The "good-faith position" weasel words only serve to try to fabricate and cast doubt on the morality of a decision on how your work can and should be used, and only because you find it inconvenient. For some reason, your argument completely eliminates the author from the decision process. Do you find that to be fair or in good faith?
Meanwhile, I never saw anyone attack musicians based on "morality" for refusing to authorize the use of their work by specific politicians or specific election campaigns, even when authors only claim personal preferences or even prefering other candidates.
As someone reading through this: Yes. I find that argument both reasonable and fair.
The author is free to ask for compensation up front in exchange for the tool they've built. They can also just simply refuse to license it in the first place.
But a license that I can violate if the author simply changes their mind is quicksand: Nothing of value can be built on it, because it might sink at ANY POINT.
It's literally unusable as a tool.
Where I personally draw the line is something being presented as a "general purpose tool", versus as an exclusive work.
When Stuart Stemple created a pink pigment and granted license to use it to "everyone except Anish Kapoor", I thought it was a great artistic statement, but as a practical matter I think it's unreasonable.
It's the difference between a whitelist and a blacklist. Saying "you can use this if you meet these criteria (e.g. having no criteria, having paid me money, etc)" is okay, but saying "everyone can use this EXCEPT if I decide I don't want you too" is not. In my opinion.
Indeed so, they have that right.
I personally wouldn't consider using code licensed like this, because even if I 100% agreed with the CoC and Steering Committee, both might change over time (the CoC says "We expect the Code of Conduct to be a living document") and I have no idea who'll be on the Steering Committee in 5-10 years time, and whoever it is will be able to pull the rug from under my feet at a whim.
A bit like paying $100 for some software but a year later being told they now think you should pay $5000.
Atlassian has a patent on that business process.
Yeah, and that's not called free software, Free Software is about empowering end users, not the creator.
Whether they're under a moral or legal obligation depends on the moral code (not the same across people in the same country, much less in different countries) and the legal code.
For example, if they had a condition that Women, Gays, Jews or Blacks should not use it? Can they "put any conditions they please" including the above? What would you say about this "morally"? I know what most would say: that they have a moral obligation to not put such a condition.
And it would not be legal either, in many jurisdictions at least.
The creators are not simply the outcome of a populated space but of its navigation, through orientation, implying the sought, the accepted and the refused. Their «fruit» is produced accordingly - and not just "owing to society", but also "in spite of it" - and represents an intention, which is conditional to the product itself.
And way back then - when courts where a thing, but a broad tax base was not, and in any case society didn't have the kind of near-instant communication networks available now - that might even have made sense.
I agree with your intention, but there's a balance to be struck between individual contributions and those of wider society.
Isn't it "how they sell it" instead of "how they use it"?
Edit: Also, "how" doesn't necessarily mean "what for".
Contextually: the point is more like "we do not accept that these springs we build can be used in landmines". It ecompasses the literal point, yet it is different - at least, it refuses the purpose, not the person.
Purpose and person are hard to separate too. Like if you will sell cakes to anyone, except that nobody will be given a cake if it's for a gay wedding.