Asklemmy

43893 readers

1306 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

FOSS programmers, what do you think of horrible people using your software? (lemmy.world)

submitted 4 months ago by zephyr@lemmy.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

27 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I just learned that Nmap is almost GPL except that they revoked the license specifically for SCO group for their SCO–Linux disputes.

This got me thinking, what do open source programmers think of evil companies or horrible people using their software?

Don't get me wrong, FOSS software by its nature can't be controlled or strictly prevented of being used. But in case of companies like SCO, that is a thing that at least can cause them headache and they risk getting into legal trouble. A programmer for example can modify GPL to make so that his software can't be used by Microsoft or Facebook, but it is GPL for everybody else.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Daeraxa@lemmy.ml 46 points 4 months ago (9 children)

The moment you exclude any group or persons from your licence, it is, by definition, no longer open source.

Of course that doesn't sit well with some people and there are some initiatives to try to account for that, for example the Hippocratic License that allows you to customise your licence to specifically exclude groups that might use your software to cause harm or the Do No Harm license with similar goals.

Honestly, I find it hard to object to the idea. Some might argue it is a slippery slope away from the ideals of software freedom (as has been the case with some of the contraversial licenses recently like BSL and Hashicorp. I'm not a hardline idealist in the same way and if these more restrictive licenses that restrict some freedoms still produce software that might otherwise not exist then I'm happy they are around.

Would I use one? Probably not, for me, whilst I like the idea, I think the controversy generated by using a non-standard licence would become its defining feature and would put off a lot of people from contributing to the project.

[–] lily33@lemm.ee 20 points 4 months ago (7 children)

The biggest issue is that there isn't a universal agreement on what causes harm. There is agreement on the basics - murder, violence, etc - but they're already illegal anyways, no need to ban them by license.

[–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 4 months ago (5 children)

Ouch/Dead = Harm

[–] Catsrules@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

What about self defense?

[–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 months ago

Ouches for self defence

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (5 replies)