20 ms·

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

by s7r 5y ago

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 people, and (4) building tools that control weapons, including tools that automate the deployment, operation, and targeting of weapons. Reported violations of the Code of Conduct are sent to a Steering Committee, made up of members of the community, who determine if the reported project is in violation of the Code of Conduct. If so, the Committee takes steps to remedy the situation (e.g. realigning project with the Code of Conduct, or removing ml5.js from the project) — and if no resolution is found, the project falls out of compliance with the terms of the software license. It's an interesting experiment.² Software is a tool to help us solve problems and reach desired outcomes. Licenses are also a tool to help us solve problems and reach desired outcomes. When desired outcomes exclude certain things (e.g. discrimination of marginalized communities, manipulation of public opinion, autonomous weapons, values antithetical to that of a community), it seems a Code of Conduct can also be a worthwhile tool to solve problems and support the outcomes that the community is working towards. (Of course, wisdom and governance are crucial and not to be taken for granted. Shout out DKP servers³ for showing some light there.) ¹ ml5.js Code of Conduct: https://github.com/ml5js/Code-of-Conduct/ https://github.com/ml5js/Code-of-Conduct/ ² Analysis from KE Mitchell on ml5.js licensing: https://writing.kemitchell.com/2021/01/12/ml5js-Takes-a-Stand.html https://writing.kemitchell.com/2021/01/12/ml5js-Takes-a-Stan... ³ On Dragon Kill Points and governance systems in World of Warcraft: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=958945 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=958945

roenxi 5y ago
If all software was licensed that way, 5-15 years would pass then suddenly there'd be a whole bunch of "Wow, Stallman was right again! We should have been using free software licenses!" style articles. Restricting software use to only people approved by the creators is a terrible idea. Society has to operate with some level of trust that even people we disagree with, using methods we don't approve of, have the potential to improve the world. Otherwise the situation will get worse.
- mdp2021 5y ago
  Your point about the «terrible idea», including the statement «Otherwise the situation will get worse», requires more defence. There is an issue with undesirable use of technology, so many are fearing future regret (Alfred Nobel in front of the title 'Le marchand de la mort est mort') - this has to be assessed, and is not solved by an appeal to trust (which is exactly what is lacking). The fear is about the opposite to «improv[ing] the world».
- Ardren 5y ago
  > If all software was licensed that way, 5-15 years would pass then suddenly there'd be a whole bunch of "Wow, Stallman was right again! We should have been using free software licenses!" style articles. Why do you think that would be the case? If the license doesn't achieve what the creator wanted, then they can just change it. It's not up to the greater community to decide what the best license is for other peoples projects. It sounds like you have your own idea of what will "improve the world" and want other people to license their work to match with it.
  - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
    I don't think you can change the license in hindsight, though? At most you could change it for newer versions of your software?
  - delroth 5y ago
    > If the license doesn't achieve what the creator wanted, then they can just change it. No, you can't "just change it" if you have external contributors and you allow them to keep ownership of their contributions (the default). Many people object to CLAs on philosophical reasons and will refuse to sign them. Now your "just change it" is a 6-12 months effort trying to chase down every single contributor and nitpicking your license change until everyone is happy, or rewriting a bunch of code due to licensing issues.
- nuerow 5y ago
  > Restricting software use to only people approved by the creators is a terrible idea. Isn't that the whole point of author's rights/intellectual property in general and software licenses in particular?
rrss 5y ago
Sure, interesting idea, but this is not open source as it is widely understood or as it is defined by OSI.
mkotowski 5y ago
To be honest, deciding if you are not breaking ml5.js Code of Conduct feels like a material for full-time research on its own. How to define who is marginalized by whom? And by what actor? Creators of the code, users, customers? What if both groups think they are marginalized by the opposing one? Who can use the code then? Forbidding manipulation of public opinion is also too lax of a term to use that way. Look for example into such polarizing topics like pro-life/pro-choice debate worldwide. Each side can accuse the other of manipulating the public while still believing they are in the right. Controlling weapons is probably the point that could be easily defended in terms of being rather concrete, but I think it could be placed as some kind of custom license (IANAL). Putting things that should be confined to decisions made by some kind of regulatory body like a country’s judicial system in a text file is rather a pointless signaling in my opinion, although it can be easily understood why somebody would want to include something like that.
timwaagh 5y ago
Isn't that software closed in all but name. I mean since they determine themselves whether anything violates the code of conduct they can basically ban usage of the software retroactively. If I use it to make a gazillion dollars through selling stuffed animals they would claim it violates code of conduct and I could get back into compliance by paying the committee the gazillion dollars and I'd have no recourse even though to an outside observer selling stuffed animals doesn't do any of the things banned by the code of conduct.
throwaway59553 5y ago
[dead]
theHIDninja 5y ago
You will have to demonstrate how a social media platform that hasn't even launched yet has "discriminated againt marginalized communities". They haven't.
EGreg 5y ago
Reminds me of the dispute between Douglas Crockford (the inventor of JSON and writer of JSON2 parser) and the open source movement… The parser had a cheeky requirement that made it incompatible with various software licenses: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3693108 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3693108 Also the same Douglas Crockford on refusing to change JSONLint 2’s strictness: https://twitter.com/martinkl/status/43086204350119936?s=21 https://twitter.com/martinkl/status/43086204350119936?s=21
bjt2n3904 5y ago
Wasn't Hacker News all up in arms over the SQLite "Code of Conduct" that borrowed too heavily from the Bible? This is similar nonsense. You might as well have a "Don't Be Evil™" code of conduct that is as follows: 1. You may not use this software to do evil. 2. I decide what is evil.
brailsafe 5y ago
> discriminating against marginalized communities Only marginalised communities?
- taneq 5y ago
  The way things are going, they’re probably defining discrimination as any negative outcome for a member of a marginalised community (where ‘marginalised’ is also defined on their terms.)
- Robin_Message 5y ago
  The licence surely implies any discrimination being forbidden. Proof by contradiction: if someone uses this software to discriminate against an apparently non-marginalised community, then that community would be being marginalised in at least one way (by this usage), thus making that community a marginalised community, thus making that usage against the licence.
  - lvass 5y ago
    Therefore no one is allowed to use it, ever. This thing runs in the web browser so it clearly marginalizes people who don't have internet access, as well as people who disable JS for security reasons, among others.
hajile 5y ago
[flagged]
MomoXenosaga 5y ago
I wonder just how far people are willing to take their wokeism. So far neither the Pentagon nor CIA has had any problems recruiting scientists and software developers. With idealism I've discovered that words are rarely followed by action.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- coldacid 5y ago
  All the woke are doing are ensuring that all hell will break loose when the pendulum swings back.
HideousKojima 5y ago
That's a surefire way to make sure proprietary software solutions win: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freed... >I've stated some of my views about other political issues, about activities that are or aren't unjust. Your views might differ, and that's precisely the point. If we accepted programs with usage restrictions as part of a free operating system such as GNU, people would come up with lots of different usage restrictions. There would be programs banned for use in meat processing, programs banned only for pigs, programs banned only for cows, and programs limited to kosher foods. Someone who hates spinach might write a program allowing use for processing any vegetable except spinach, while a Popeye fan might allow use only for spinach. There would be music programs allowed only for rap music, and others allowed only for classical music. >The result would be a system that you could not count on for any purpose. For each task you wish to do, you'd have to check lots of licenses to see which parts of your system are off limits for that task. >How would users respond to that? I think most of them would use proprietary systems. Allowing any usage restrictions whatsoever in free software would mainly push users towards nonfree software. Trying to stop users from doing something through usage restrictions in free software is as ineffective as pushing on an object through a long, soft, straight piece of spaghetti. >It is worse than ineffective; it is wrong too, because software developers should not exercise such power over what users do. Imagine selling pens with conditions about what you can write with them; that would be noisome, and we should not stand for it. Likewise for general software. If you make something that is generally useful, like a pen, people will use it to write all sorts of things, even horrible things such as orders to torture a dissident; but you must not have the power to control people's activities through their pens. It is the same for a text editor, compiler or kernel. >You do have an opportunity to determine what your software can be used for: when you decide what functionality to implement. You can write programs that lend themselves mainly to uses you think are positive, and you have no obligation to write any features that might lend themselves to activities you disapprove of.
- Ardren 5y ago
  I don't think their choice of license had much to do with losing the battle with "proprietary software"...
danShumway 5y ago
> 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/ 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 think it gets across what the movement's priorities are (open access with ethical restrictions). I think it gets across the movement's connections to the Open Source movement and its origins. But it does so in a way that doesn't promote confusion around the fact that the movement does have different philosophies and is a separate licensing scheme. It's a movement that sprung out of a specific objection to Open Source licensing philosophy (https://opensource.org/faq#evil https://opensource.org/faq#evil) and makes a targeted pivot (Open->Ethical) to address the concerns it has.
- superdisk 5y ago
  I prefer the classic term, PROPRIETARY software. At least be honest about what this is.
  - danShumway 5y ago
    Ethical Source licenses are proprietary, but just like in the case of Source Available licenses it can often be useful to create subcategories. No one gets up in arms when we in the Open Source movement distinguish between Copyleft and permissive licenses. I don't see why we should get up in arms when other people introduce the same kinds of granularity in their license terms. 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.
lupire 5y ago
Good for them. It's not open source; it's licensed to their current friends. Meanwhile, people who aren't lifetime friends of the copyright owners aren't going to use software whose license can be withdrawn at any time based on a dispute. People don't like when Oracle or MS or Intel or any corpo tries that, so they shouldn't accept it from anyone else for anything they care about. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5138866 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5138866
kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
So who decides what is "disingeniously manipulating public opinion"? I think for many people that statement is too vague and hence the risk of using that software is too high.
- quotemstr 5y ago
  > disingeniously manipulating public opinion This is code for promoting viewpoints that the creators dislike.
  - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
    I think so, too. Or what if you just publish a web site that also displays ads?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
naasking 5y ago
> (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 people, and (4) building tools that control weapons, including tools that automate the deployment, operation, and targeting of weapons. Who decides whether the license was violated? That is, what counts as discrimination, what counts as "marginalized", do those differ by country, what counts as "disingenuously manipulating public opinion", what counts as "repressing rights", what counts as "tools that automate the deployment, operation and targeting of weapons". For instance, can a nuts and bolts manufacturer whose nuts and bolts might be used to assemble pieces of a weapon use that ML project to do quality control of their products? Seems like an unsolvable quagmire.
veeti 5y ago
The ultimate irony is that this project is apparently sponsored by Google [1], a known peddler of mass surveillance to repress the rights of people. [1] https://github.com/ml5js/Code-of-Conduct/issues/2 https://github.com/ml5js/Code-of-Conduct/issues/2
cabalamat 5y ago
> They bound their open-source license to a Code of Conduct 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.
Chris2048 5y ago
The usual meaning of "code-of-conduct" is a conduct guide for contributors to a project; In this case it appears to be for users of the software, and specific to project usage rather than user conduct (I think?). 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?
scohesc 5y ago
That sounds like a bunch of very wishy-washy vague terms that open source licenses shouldn't implement. You're going to get a lot of companies that don't want to deal with the legal hassle of these special terms not contributing to open source software. Whether the developers want that or not, I guess that's their choice.
ydlr 5y ago
This is such an enlightened approach. Why stop at software. Shoe makers should absolutely start licensing their foot ware so that permission to wear their product can be revoked for violations of their Code of Conduct. Just imagine has much better the world would be!
dragonwriter 5y ago
> 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 people, and (4) building tools that control weapons, including tools that automate the deployment, operation, and targeting of weapons. That’s just not a free or open source license, period. Which is fine, as long as they don't pretend that it is either of those things, but it sounds like they do.

by s7r 5y ago

roenxi 5y ago

If all software was licensed that way, 5-15 years would pass then suddenly there'd be a whole bunch of "Wow, Stallman was right again! We should have been using free software licenses!" style articles. Restricting software use to only people approved by the creators is a terrible idea. Society has to operate with some level of trust that even people we disagree with, using methods we don't approve of, have the potential to improve the world. Otherwise the situation will get worse.

mdp2021 5y ago
Your point about the «terrible idea», including the statement «Otherwise the situation will get worse», requires more defence. There is an issue with undesirable use of technology, so many are fearing future regret (Alfred Nobel in front of the title 'Le marchand de la mort est mort') - this has to be assessed, and is not solved by an appeal to trust (which is exactly what is lacking). The fear is about the opposite to «improv[ing] the world».
Ardren 5y ago
> If all software was licensed that way, 5-15 years would pass then suddenly there'd be a whole bunch of "Wow, Stallman was right again! We should have been using free software licenses!" style articles. Why do you think that would be the case? If the license doesn't achieve what the creator wanted, then they can just change it. It's not up to the greater community to decide what the best license is for other peoples projects. It sounds like you have your own idea of what will "improve the world" and want other people to license their work to match with it.
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
  I don't think you can change the license in hindsight, though? At most you could change it for newer versions of your software?
- delroth 5y ago
  > If the license doesn't achieve what the creator wanted, then they can just change it. No, you can't "just change it" if you have external contributors and you allow them to keep ownership of their contributions (the default). Many people object to CLAs on philosophical reasons and will refuse to sign them. Now your "just change it" is a 6-12 months effort trying to chase down every single contributor and nitpicking your license change until everyone is happy, or rewriting a bunch of code due to licensing issues.
nuerow 5y ago
> Restricting software use to only people approved by the creators is a terrible idea. Isn't that the whole point of author's rights/intellectual property in general and software licenses in particular?

rrss 5y ago

Sure, interesting idea, but this is not open source as it is widely understood or as it is defined by OSI.

mkotowski 5y ago

To be honest, deciding if you are not breaking ml5.js Code of Conduct feels like a material for full-time research on its own. How to define who is marginalized by whom? And by what actor? Creators of the code, users, customers? What if both groups think they are marginalized by the opposing one? Who can use the code then? Forbidding manipulation of public opinion is also too lax of a term to use that way. Look for example into such polarizing topics like pro-life/pro-choice debate worldwide. Each side can accuse the other of manipulating the public while still believing they are in the right. Controlling weapons is probably the point that could be easily defended in terms of being rather concrete, but I think it could be placed as some kind of custom license (IANAL). Putting things that should be confined to decisions made by some kind of regulatory body like a country’s judicial system in a text file is rather a pointless signaling in my opinion, although it can be easily understood why somebody would want to include something like that.

timwaagh 5y ago

Isn't that software closed in all but name. I mean since they determine themselves whether anything violates the code of conduct they can basically ban usage of the software retroactively. If I use it to make a gazillion dollars through selling stuffed animals they would claim it violates code of conduct and I could get back into compliance by paying the committee the gazillion dollars and I'd have no recourse even though to an outside observer selling stuffed animals doesn't do any of the things banned by the code of conduct.

throwaway59553 5y ago

[dead]

theHIDninja 5y ago

You will have to demonstrate how a social media platform that hasn't even launched yet has "discriminated againt marginalized communities". They haven't.

EGreg 5y ago

Reminds me of the dispute between Douglas Crockford (the inventor of JSON and writer of JSON2 parser) and the open source movement… The parser had a cheeky requirement that made it incompatible with various software licenses: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3693108 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3693108 Also the same Douglas Crockford on refusing to change JSONLint 2’s strictness: https://twitter.com/martinkl/status/43086204350119936?s=21 https://twitter.com/martinkl/status/43086204350119936?s=21

bjt2n3904 5y ago

Wasn't Hacker News all up in arms over the SQLite "Code of Conduct" that borrowed too heavily from the Bible? This is similar nonsense. You might as well have a "Don't Be Evil™" code of conduct that is as follows: 1. You may not use this software to do evil. 2. I decide what is evil.

brailsafe 5y ago

> discriminating against marginalized communities Only marginalised communities?

taneq 5y ago
The way things are going, they’re probably defining discrimination as any negative outcome for a member of a marginalised community (where ‘marginalised’ is also defined on their terms.)
Robin_Message 5y ago
The licence surely implies any discrimination being forbidden. Proof by contradiction: if someone uses this software to discriminate against an apparently non-marginalised community, then that community would be being marginalised in at least one way (by this usage), thus making that community a marginalised community, thus making that usage against the licence.
- lvass 5y ago
  Therefore no one is allowed to use it, ever. This thing runs in the web browser so it clearly marginalizes people who don't have internet access, as well as people who disable JS for security reasons, among others.

hajile 5y ago

[flagged]

MomoXenosaga 5y ago

I wonder just how far people are willing to take their wokeism. So far neither the Pentagon nor CIA has had any problems recruiting scientists and software developers. With idealism I've discovered that words are rarely followed by action.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
coldacid 5y ago
All the woke are doing are ensuring that all hell will break loose when the pendulum swings back.

HideousKojima 5y ago

That's a surefire way to make sure proprietary software solutions win: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freed... >I've stated some of my views about other political issues, about activities that are or aren't unjust. Your views might differ, and that's precisely the point. If we accepted programs with usage restrictions as part of a free operating system such as GNU, people would come up with lots of different usage restrictions. There would be programs banned for use in meat processing, programs banned only for pigs, programs banned only for cows, and programs limited to kosher foods. Someone who hates spinach might write a program allowing use for processing any vegetable except spinach, while a Popeye fan might allow use only for spinach. There would be music programs allowed only for rap music, and others allowed only for classical music. >The result would be a system that you could not count on for any purpose. For each task you wish to do, you'd have to check lots of licenses to see which parts of your system are off limits for that task. >How would users respond to that? I think most of them would use proprietary systems. Allowing any usage restrictions whatsoever in free software would mainly push users towards nonfree software. Trying to stop users from doing something through usage restrictions in free software is as ineffective as pushing on an object through a long, soft, straight piece of spaghetti. >It is worse than ineffective; it is wrong too, because software developers should not exercise such power over what users do. Imagine selling pens with conditions about what you can write with them; that would be noisome, and we should not stand for it. Likewise for general software. If you make something that is generally useful, like a pen, people will use it to write all sorts of things, even horrible things such as orders to torture a dissident; but you must not have the power to control people's activities through their pens. It is the same for a text editor, compiler or kernel. >You do have an opportunity to determine what your software can be used for: when you decide what functionality to implement. You can write programs that lend themselves mainly to uses you think are positive, and you have no obligation to write any features that might lend themselves to activities you disapprove of.

Ardren 5y ago
I don't think their choice of license had much to do with losing the battle with "proprietary software"...

danShumway 5y ago

> 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/ 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 think it gets across what the movement's priorities are (open access with ethical restrictions). I think it gets across the movement's connections to the Open Source movement and its origins. But it does so in a way that doesn't promote confusion around the fact that the movement does have different philosophies and is a separate licensing scheme. It's a movement that sprung out of a specific objection to Open Source licensing philosophy (https://opensource.org/faq#evil https://opensource.org/faq#evil) and makes a targeted pivot (Open->Ethical) to address the concerns it has.

superdisk 5y ago
I prefer the classic term, PROPRIETARY software. At least be honest about what this is.
- danShumway 5y ago
  Ethical Source licenses are proprietary, but just like in the case of Source Available licenses it can often be useful to create subcategories. No one gets up in arms when we in the Open Source movement distinguish between Copyleft and permissive licenses. I don't see why we should get up in arms when other people introduce the same kinds of granularity in their license terms. 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.

lupire 5y ago

Good for them. It's not open source; it's licensed to their current friends. Meanwhile, people who aren't lifetime friends of the copyright owners aren't going to use software whose license can be withdrawn at any time based on a dispute. People don't like when Oracle or MS or Intel or any corpo tries that, so they shouldn't accept it from anyone else for anything they care about. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5138866 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5138866

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago

So who decides what is "disingeniously manipulating public opinion"? I think for many people that statement is too vague and hence the risk of using that software is too high.

quotemstr 5y ago
> disingeniously manipulating public opinion This is code for promoting viewpoints that the creators dislike.
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
  I think so, too. Or what if you just publish a web site that also displays ads?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

naasking 5y ago

> (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 people, and (4) building tools that control weapons, including tools that automate the deployment, operation, and targeting of weapons. Who decides whether the license was violated? That is, what counts as discrimination, what counts as "marginalized", do those differ by country, what counts as "disingenuously manipulating public opinion", what counts as "repressing rights", what counts as "tools that automate the deployment, operation and targeting of weapons". For instance, can a nuts and bolts manufacturer whose nuts and bolts might be used to assemble pieces of a weapon use that ML project to do quality control of their products? Seems like an unsolvable quagmire.

veeti 5y ago

The ultimate irony is that this project is apparently sponsored by Google [1], a known peddler of mass surveillance to repress the rights of people. [1] https://github.com/ml5js/Code-of-Conduct/issues/2 https://github.com/ml5js/Code-of-Conduct/issues/2

cabalamat 5y ago

> They bound their open-source license to a Code of Conduct 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.

Chris2048 5y ago

The usual meaning of "code-of-conduct" is a conduct guide for contributors to a project; In this case it appears to be for users of the software, and specific to project usage rather than user conduct (I think?). 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?

scohesc 5y ago

That sounds like a bunch of very wishy-washy vague terms that open source licenses shouldn't implement. You're going to get a lot of companies that don't want to deal with the legal hassle of these special terms not contributing to open source software. Whether the developers want that or not, I guess that's their choice.

ydlr 5y ago

This is such an enlightened approach. Why stop at software. Shoe makers should absolutely start licensing their foot ware so that permission to wear their product can be revoked for violations of their Code of Conduct. Just imagine has much better the world would be!

dragonwriter 5y ago

> 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 people, and (4) building tools that control weapons, including tools that automate the deployment, operation, and targeting of weapons. That’s just not a free or open source license, period. Which is fine, as long as they don't pretend that it is either of those things, but it sounds like they do.