[liberationtech] The Haven Project - Review

[Anders Sundman]

So I guess that the software license is a major concern that you have
with this project? That's fine and I will seriously consider changing
it to GPL. Are you aware of any institutions, NGOs or other
organizations with restrictions on what software they are allowed to
use (e.g. only free software as acknowledged by FSF and OSI, etc.)?

I would also briefly like to comment on some of the questions and
concerns that you raised in your reply.

1. It's not just "harm". It's "bodily harm". This has a well
established and precise legal definition in several countries.
2. There has to be intent, "intended purpose". So, nuclear weapons
researchers can't use it, but BP can use it (unless you're a real
cynic and think that they actually intended to cause harm).
3. There is no room for any kind of "greater good" exceptions in the license.

While I appreciate the discussion about the license, I don't want it
to overshadow the other aspects of the project or derail the
discussion about the contents and scope of Haven. Please consider
emailing me off the list for further discussion about the license.
Thank you.

Best Regards,
Anders '4ZM' Sundman, The Haven Project [http://haven-project.org/]

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 6:09 AM, Daniel Colascione
<dan.colascione at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/24/10 8:38 PM, Jacob Appelbaum wrote:
>> On 11/24/2010 06:43 PM, Anders Sundman wrote:
>>> Dear liberationtech readers,
>>>
>>
>> Did you really invent your own free software license[0] for use with
>> this project?
>
> It's not even a free software license.
>
> Both DFSG and OSI standards for free and open source software prohibit
> field-of-use restrictions, of which the OP's "no harm" clause is
> definitely a type.
>
> These clauses pop up every once in a while, all they all have practical
> difficulties stemming from definition and scope: what constitutes
> "harm"? Could a nuclear weapons research program use it under the old
> "Peace is our Profession"-style rationale that they're _preventing_
> harm? Would BP and Bank of America be prohibited from using the software
> under the rationale that their economic activities cause harm? One could
> argue that use by dairy farmers is prohibited.
>
> No-harm clauses don't actually prevent any harm from coming to anyone.
> Bad actors already have all the software they need --- not that they'd
> consider themselves bound by EULAs anyway. Look at it this way: the
> license is surrounded by legal uncertainty and is incompatible with
> every other free software license on earth. That's the cost. The benefit
> is zero.
>
> If every software developer prohibited the use of his software for
> causes he personally found objectionable, we'd have so many mutually
> incompatible licenses that it would be impossible to create the kind of
> free software ecosystem we enjoy today.
>