Comment by abetusk | Hacker News Reader

Comment by abetusk | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

My main critique is their non-commercial licensing. For example, the linked article is BY-NC-SA4.0.

My critique is pretty minor as most of the technical releases from 100 rabbits, as far as I can tell, is libre/free licensed, with the non-commercial licensing reserved for writing and art. Even so, it means there's effort required to decouple the non-commercial aspects of projects from their libre parts and sends a big signal, to me at least, that I should only ever consider their strictly technical work for use.

When talking about permacomputing, for example, I don't know why one wouldn't encourage, in any way possible, commercial viability that would lead to the stated goal.

I have an affinity for the 100 rabbits folks, and I deeply respect a lot of their work, but their reliance on non-commercial licenses means that they're tacitly supporting copyright terms that are dis-proportionally long that, in most cases, is well over a century at this point.

Note that Stallman also has the same stance, putting his work under a "no-derivatives" license, so it's not like free software folks believe in "free culture", either.

It's a good stance, I commend it. Although, there's a history as to why the license is there.

The license exists there so that we were able to do take down requests on OpenSea. We had to make the asset license explicit for OpenSea to take down the copied works off their network.

In a different world where we are not made to participate in crypto ecosystems against our will, we would not have that restriction.

I know I wouldn't want to restrict the use of my works just because there's a crypto bro out there that might profit from an NFT.

When putting software under a libre/free license, there are compromises to be made to promote freedom. One of them is accepting that the software that's created might be used for purposes that are considered bad by the author, such as being used by military entities for violence [0]. This would be the same argument I would make for artistic works, where I would argue that the benefits of providing freedom in use of the works outweighs the potential for abuse.

Part of my worry is that there's a large part of technology that is artistic (writing, text, pictures, illustration, art, music, etc.) that will be buried under a century of copyright. The overlong copyright terms means that parts of our culture will be restricted from the commons well beyond the window of relevancy.

[0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NoMilitary

When it happens to you, you can see how you react. I sure remember having your stance at one point, in the abstract. My personal use of license is reactionary to the situations I've experienced.

I never really looked into the GPL before, their stance on military use includes freedom of usage for institutions whose purpose is surveillance and warfare, my gut feeling is that they might not have asked themselves freedom for whom? the missile manufacturer? I'm not sure that this sounds like freedom.

I'll say this right out, I'll bounce out of open source if I ever see my code used for military purposes. I'll keep releasing works under the MIT until I can no longer in good conscience do so.

Thanks for the clarity, I think I have a more consistent view of your ethics now.

I'm not sure if it's cultural, but in the US there's a strong sentiment for freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is most important not when people are saying things that one agrees with, but when they are saying things for which one disagrees.

The FSF's stance on software freedom is almost surely well thought out and deeply ideological. On one hand, it means that for every bad case scenario, the freedom allows the option for other good case scenarios. On the other hand, it identifies how difficult and fickle it is to enforce a purity test for usage and that any organization involved in such a decision is bound to be corrupted.

Note that MIT is one of the more permissive libre/free licenses, allowing for commercial re-use without a copyleft component, network usage without providing source or patent exemption. At the very least, you might want to consider GPL or AGPL as they might help some of the bad use cases you're trying to guard against.

Crockford's license seems like a good alternative in this case! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4762107

> When talking about permacomputing, for example, I don't know why one wouldn't encourage, in any way possible, commercial viability that would lead to the stated goal.

Because capitalism is what destroys the world. Fucking duh.

There's very little point in spending so much time thinking about C compilers in forth that run on scavenged z80s these days if capitalism is actually viable.

> Because capitalism is what destroys the world. Fucking duh.

The issue is that “commercial” includes plenty of not-necessarily-capitalist entities as well, like sole proprietors and cooperatives (sole proprietors being single-member worker cooperatives).

Of course, a society in which worker cooperatives and individual craftspersons are the dominant forms of economic participation is probably (hopefully!) also a society which has done away with intellectual property and the enforcement thereof, rendering software license terms (including non-commercial use clauses) entirely moot.

> The issue is that “commercial” includes plenty of not-necessarily-capitalist entities as well

I see no issue, and believe me, I have the deepest empathies for people who participate in capitalism under duress.

If you could explain why I or anyone else should need to help some people murder so that those "not-necessarily-capitalists" we are so worried about can use my software without legal threat, I would happily listen to it, but I think you will be unconvincing.

I mean, you have realised that someone could just ask, right? I could listen to them, and if they had a reason that I agreed was good, I could give them whatever they needed for themselves without accessorising myself to that murder that others would do with those things.

Digital artifacts are the modern form of the means of production. Making digital artifacts available under a libre/free is giving these modern means of production to the public by putting it into the commons.

By requiring an interaction and explicit permission, you're putting yourself as a gate keeper to the means of production. In the best case, the uses will depend on your temperament at the time of request. In the worst case, such as a state backed morality commission, this could lead to corruption and abuse.

Part of capitalism is the ownership of private property, including intellectual property. If your focus is on making sure you have control over your work for things you think are moral, then the modern copyright system is in place for you to keep that control.

My focus is on empowering people with tools and making sure those tools aren't restricted in their use by a small oligarchy.

> you're putting yourself as a gate keeper to the means of production.

Liar.

I am only the gatekeeper of my own efforts.

If you had any clue how to code yourself you I could not prevent you from making your own code.

> If your focus is on making sure you have control over your work for things you think are moral, then the modern copyright system is in place for you to keep that control.

> My focus is [on preventing people from exercising moral judgement].

Good for you, and thank you for being a shining reminder of the reason I don't contribute to open source.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com