321–330 of 551 posts
In terms of "antithetical values", the machine learning project ml5js.org actually did something about this. They bound their open-source license to a Code of Conduct¹, which forbids the use of their ML software for (1) discriminating against marginalized communities, (2) building tools that disingenuously manipulate public opinion, (3) building tools of mass surveillance and prediction to repress the rights of peopl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They can, which doesn't mean they should. Also, I think a person has a mortal obligation to allow that their political position is at least partially flawed.
I don't get it. What does "allowing that one's politics is partially flawed" have to do with not wanting one's project used for surveillance, weapons control, etc?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? The creators created the software, they can put any conditions they please on how others might use it. They're under no moral or legal obligation to allow people to use the fruits of their labors, except as they permit.
They can, which doesn't mean they should. Also, I think a person has a mortal obligation to allow that their political position is at least partially flawed.
Why? I mean, don't you believe you have a say on who you grant permission to use your intellectual property?
> Also, I think a person has a mortal obligation to allow that their political position is at least partially flawed.
This assertion makes no sense. You should not be forced to help advance anyone's goals when they are diametrically opposite to what you believe in and can be outright hostile towards you and your loved ones.
In terms of "antithetical values", the machine learning project ml5js.org actually did something about this. They bound their open-source license to a Code of Conduct¹, which forbids the use of their ML software for (1) discriminating against marginalized communities, (2) building tools that disingenuously manipulate public opinion, (3) building tools of mass surveillance and prediction to repress the rights of peopl…
This isn't open source software, because the Steering Committee can arbitrarily take away anyone's right to use the software any time they like.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no service.
People were able to access the service and create accounts. Those people are entitled to the sources. This would immediately go away if they just posted a tarball of the almost certainly unmodified sources. I guess nobody running this understands what's going on?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> open-source license to a Code of Conduct Just a minor note, a license that works this way can't be accurately described as Open Source. It's more accurate to say that ml5.js is an Ethical Source license. See https://ethicalsource.dev/ for more details. I'm sure this is a name that will get debated as it becomes more common. But personally, speaking just as an outside observer I really like the name Ethical Source.…
I prefer the classic term, PROPRIETARY software. At least be honest about what this is.
There's a meaningful difference between an Ethical Source license and, say, an Adobe License. There's also a meaningful difference between an Ethical Source license and a traditional Source Available license like Mongo's. Yes, they all fall under the umbrella of proprietary licenses, but it's reasonable for communities to want more specific terms that accurately describe what their priorities/goals are.
I object pretty strongly to people trying to co-opt the Open Source movement for their own ends, particularly when I think they're trying to redefine/undermine terms like Open Source or deny the legitimacy of Open Source definitions purely for their own promotional purposes. This has been one of my chief criticisms of Source Available licenses and the debates around software like MongoDB. I think it would be hypocritical for me to turn around and try to dictate how other communities describe their licenses. And honestly, I think that Ethical v Open is a really descriptive way to describe the differences between the communities, and your comment demonstrates that.
Immediately you're pushing back that Ethical Source licenses aren't Open, they're proprietary. You're right, they're not Open. So the Ethical/Open substitution is in a lot of ways a perfect encapsulation of what's different here. Open Source licenses preserve Open access, Ethical Source licenses (at least attempt to) preserve social ethics.
I really don't get what the objection is. If I thought that Ethical Source as a term was trying to trick people into believing that it was Open Source or deny that the software was proprietary, I'd be angry about that. But at least from what I can see right now, I don't think that's the case. Far from being cagey or deceptive, the term Ethical Source actually draws attention to the fact that it's diverging from Open Source. I don't see why I should have a problem with that, I think it's a good term.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People were able to access the service and create accounts. Those people are entitled to the sources. This would immediately go away if they just posted a tarball of the almost certainly unmodified sources. I guess nobody running this understands what's going on?
If you have no right to a computer service, you have no right to the AGPL code it runs. For example, a company is allowed to make internal GPL-based tools and not have to release their code. If I hack into their service and download the binary, I’m not entitled to the source code. If the closed beta was meant for a select few, but was found by someone else, that someone else doesn’t have a right to the code just beca…
The license makes no such distinction. The website had no warning that it was a private test, was hosted on the presumed official domain and looked like it went live.
I never received an explicit authorisation by YC to use Hacker News and here I am. I wouldn’t call my access unauthorised even though it was never authorised.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But isn't it exactly what they say? Like "hey, I wish they didn't use Mastodon, but there's a license and they can use our software if they want to and they comply with the license"? Or did I misunderstand this? Their only issue in the article is that they don't comply with the license. I believe the "personal feelings" paragraph was added so that they explain to some people that they don't want to/cannot prevent the…
Yeah I don't get why people don't understand the sentence or the point of it. "[...] people so antithetical to our values" implies that the values of Mastodon are the opposite of the people using the code. I.E. since everyone knows the Trump people are racist, homophobic, and misogynist pieces of shit, the Mastodon company values are to be the opposite of that.
In terms of "antithetical values", the machine learning project ml5js.org actually did something about this. They bound their open-source license to a Code of Conduct¹, which forbids the use of their ML software for (1) discriminating against marginalized communities, (2) building tools that disingenuously manipulate public opinion, (3) building tools of mass surveillance and prediction to repress the rights of peopl…
Furthermore, if non-compliance with the CoC means: " the project falls out of compliance with the terms of the software license" then the terms of the CoC are the terms of the license.
Now, one solution would just to be to grant the steering committee the power to revoke the license, but this is not clearly the case:
> If anyone notifies you in writing that you have not complied with the Code of Conduct, you can keep your license by taking all practical steps to comply within 30 days after the notice. If you do not do so, and the ml5.js Code of Conduct Committee (or its equivalent or successor) agrees that you are in violation of the Code of Conduct, your license ends immediately.
So, what if someone (anyone?) notifies you that you are in violation, but you don't agree? I'd argue "all practical steps to comply" in the case that you are not violating the CoC is to do nothing. Even if the steering committee does agree you are in violation, this is not the only condition for ending the licence:
> If you do not [take all practical steps to comply with the CoC], and the [Committee] agrees that you are in violation..
These things are usually written in legalese for a reason; the "and" is ambiguous, but the usual interpretation is that both conditions need to be true, hence the committee decision is irrelevant if the first condition is not met, and who decides that?