Commit 334f72cc authored by Turner Hall's avatar Turner Hall
Browse files

correction to reflect that BCL is not open source

parent 0cf2e018
...@@ -25,9 +25,7 @@ Small software libraries and programs which when put together form larger system ...@@ -25,9 +25,7 @@ Small software libraries and programs which when put together form larger system
Freedom zero was initially added to the free software definition in response to proprietary software and "shareware" or "freeware" in particular which allowed free access to run their closed-source programs with legal restrictions on usage which trapped innocent, individual users at the time. However, now that FLOSS is more prevalent then shouldn't we take appropriate responsibility for our creations that that developers of proprietary software have often proven they are unable to use for the purpose of social freedoms? We are in a position to deny oppressors *our* tools which they use to strip the freedoms, livelihoods, and existences away from other human beings. We need to take responsibility. Free Software licenses need to be able to contain language restricting the use of such software for bodily harm at the very least (_I_ would definitely want more expansive protections). Any code which has politicized design due to it's sophistication with real world consequences should have protections from abuse in it's applications (whether lower-level code needs the same protections is debatable). Freedom zero was initially added to the free software definition in response to proprietary software and "shareware" or "freeware" in particular which allowed free access to run their closed-source programs with legal restrictions on usage which trapped innocent, individual users at the time. However, now that FLOSS is more prevalent then shouldn't we take appropriate responsibility for our creations that that developers of proprietary software have often proven they are unable to use for the purpose of social freedoms? We are in a position to deny oppressors *our* tools which they use to strip the freedoms, livelihoods, and existences away from other human beings. We need to take responsibility. Free Software licenses need to be able to contain language restricting the use of such software for bodily harm at the very least (_I_ would definitely want more expansive protections). Any code which has politicized design due to it's sophistication with real world consequences should have protections from abuse in it's applications (whether lower-level code needs the same protections is debatable).
I want to include at least one example of a software license which does not meet the Free Software Foundation's Free Software Definition which takes social responsibility for its applications. Hopefully in the future, this list will grow. I would also appreciate emails with suggestions for more. I wish I could include at least one example of a software license which does not meet the Free Software Foundation's Free Software Definition which takes social responsibility for its applications while meeting freedoms 1,2, and 3. Unfortunately I cannot find any. However one license is available which can serve as a model if it is expanded to preserve the three freedoms, the [Beloved Community License (BCLv1)](https://www.douglass.io/the-bcl). Hopefully in the future, I can have a list of socially responsible licenses here, but for now, there is nothing. Email me if you know any I have missed.
- [Beloved Community License (BCLv1)](https://www.douglass.io/the-bcl)
To conclude, if you *really* want to Free Society, then use the _new_ 3 when defining what makes a free license (if you would excuse the very old, but GNU pun). To conclude, if you *really* want to Free Society, then use the _new_ 3 when defining what makes a free license (if you would excuse the very old, but GNU pun).
......
Markdown is supported
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment