Commit bdff490f authored by Turner Hall's avatar Turner Hall
Browse files

revised The New 3 with a short list of ethical and free licenses I found

parent 334f72cc
......@@ -25,7 +25,14 @@ 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).
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)]( 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.
There are a handful of software licenses I know of which do not meet the Free Software Foundation's Free Software Definition and take social responsibility for its applications while meeting freedoms 1,2, and 3. But before that I want to mention a special mention for a nonfree license which does this, the [Beloved Community License (BCLv1)]( The BCL is hardly comprehensive and uses "spiritual" language though (not sure that holds up in court, much less reality). Licenses which do improve on this take roughly the same concerns into account for the creation of a better world while also keeping code free. Some of them also have additional political motivations, but keep in mind that I do not strictly endorse any additional terms, it is just not very many licenses accomplish this so licenses which go a bit farther are sometimes the only examples. Some of these cover cases the others do not and have different approaches to ensuring social responsibility. I also try to avoid licenses which place the restriction on *who* is running the program rather than *why* they are running the program.
So in no particular order (the order I found them) we have:
- The [NPL]( - Similar to the AGPL (Page also has the CNPL, which violates my rule about "who" rather than "why")
- The [OAL]( - Similar to the MIT License
- The [CGPL]( - Similar to the GPL (I like the approach on this one, it just pins the [UDHRC]( directly to the license)
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