isn't it STRANGE how all the 'post-open source' licenses only put restrictions on users and distributors, but nothing on developers? like i haven't seen a license that says 'this software must be fully accessible by those with disabilities' or 'this software must not include tracking code'

like there's a ton of licenses talking about how the software musn't be used for things like or things like fossil fuels, nuclear power (uh?), forest burning (ok fuck firefighters i guess), all these things that will obviously not have an actual impact outside making the author feel good- but any clauses that would have an impact on the software itself and protect or empower users are nowhere to be seen

my pet theory that i literally made up just now for this is that developers never see themselves as the problem and creating injustice in the world by how they design their programs, it's only others who do bad with their software that create injustice

i guess it's nice to think that a license can stop harm from happening but also arrogant to ignore the harm your decisions and lack of expertise create

but more importantly: licensing your software under a 'fuck big corps' license is a lot easier than spending actual effort in making your software good or quality and saying no to features that discriminate against people

@jookia that's how I see it. Rocket goes up who cares where it comes down. That's my my department :blobcattouchfluffytail:

@jookia it's neoliberal as fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck

the only decisions that matter are individual ones and also other people are making bad choices not me

@anna i think it just focuses on the wrong issues, though in the end it's not like i'm going to even look at code under a nonfree license let alone use it

@jookia and while there's plenty of garbage well-meaning free software out there (i could write a fucking doctorate thesis on the awful shit that has happened to me thanks to Mastodon's technical design and choices just in the last week) it's at least, you know, something you can work with and comment on and not, say, run into obstacles with if one wanted to write a thesis

@anna i dunno, the GPL and other copyleft can stop that despite being free

@jookia Anti-freedom-zero is cosmetic guilt-washing. People feel helpless to actually do anything about Bad Stuff, so instead they take measures to distance themselves from bad stuff along some notion of complicity.

@a7 i think most those laws only apply to government workings

@jookia it applies to companies as well - menus, set top boxes - etc - for example google fiber was granted a wavier last year - has a large list of companies and sectors granted waivers until tbd

@a7 interesting! i hope this makes an actual difference

@jookia ya i think its pretty good in spirit and execution on higher profit entities, but i think it might prove too much a burden for independent OSS developers at, time to be determined.

@jookia I think both of those clauses would be incredibly good - however I'm not sure anyone other than corporate entities with large teams and resources could fulfill the bit: 'this software must be fully accessible by those with disabilities'. Maybe something more like 'all best efforts must be made to make keep this software compatible and extensible with the vast majority of accessibility devices and software libraries'. But in the end, that wouldn't necessarily accomplish much beyond the ideological statement it makes (which isn't all together without merit, but certainly falls short of the desired outcome).

The bit about being free of tracking code is a much more reasonable and generally 'do-able' goal. It could still be a potential can of worms with certain issues... like: are all analytics tracking code? Certainly some are. Could opt-in (off by default) analytics be acceptable? Maybe so if the policy for retention of data, and some promise of data anonymity are are specified? I don't know. I tend to disable these things when given the option, but do on occasion enable the feature when done tastefully in a opt-in method similar to what I described.

I think they're both good ideas, and I'd be willing to support such a licence if it didn't hinder small and solely-owned operations/individuals. That is to say, if it doesn't make it harder for individuals to make software that meets the demands of the license. I like that general open-source licences allow literally anyone to write software, whether an individual, a group of friends or a business... and that demographic can change. I'm not a fan of licences that allow the software to become less free than it started, or proprietary, though. I just want a license that allows all humans to use a piece of code, while only restricting that which might give rise to closed/proprietary variants, or code that is less accessible than it began. In that way I think we may be in agreement (and likely on many more levels of this).

Thanks for the thought-provoking post! I hope you take this idea further! :)

@self nah, i'm not taking it anywhere. i'm fine with the existing licenses for deailing with copyright, this is just my criticism of licenses that add extra nonfree terms

@jookia the first is too vague for a contract. The second is lol have you seen capitalism?
Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!