Source code is as moral or immoral as a box of nails. You can use it for good and you can use it for evil.
The reason why we've had such a massive boost in productivity in tech is precisely because of all this unpaid labor. Does it suck that the builders of said code didn't receive much (or any) compensation for their work? Sure, but then again, that was never the point. You don't volunteer at the local SPCA and then complain that you weren't rewarded enough.
Open source has eaten the world. Most of the closed protocols, closed formats, closed systems, closed specifications, etc have died over the past decade, precisely because we have freely available interoperable software and specifications.
This "ethical code" movement will only gum up the works by mixing in a whole bunch of incompatible licenses: This npm component requires that you not use it in nuclear tech. That component requires that you not eat meat. This one requires that you not have dealings with China. It'll be chaos because nobody could ever satisfy them all, which means that no legal department would ever authorize its use, until a few sane people managing these software collections/repositories finally wake up and say "No crazy licensing allowed."
Leave politics out of the tools you build. Politics don't belong there.
Why not? I understand the argument that it will be problematic for consumers to intermingle licenses; that's fine, if it's cheaper for you to rebuild a library than it is to audit licenses then that's fine.
Beyond that, I don't understand why it's undesirable for you to specify that your creations are not used in ways that you find morally reprehensible. It's functionally the same as an embargo; we, as a nation, ban trade of items with nations whom we have found guilty of violating some moral principle.
I would counter that by allowing your work to be used in potentially immoral acts, you are complicit in those acts. If you create an image recognition algorithm that ends up being used in drones, you have helped the resulting drone strikes be launched just as if you had worked for the army. You are effectively working for the army, but for free.
> This "ethical code" movement will only gum up the works by mixing in a whole bunch of incompatible licenses
Which we literally already have. Have you looked up the compatibility chart for the GPL? Almost nothing widely used is compatible with it: http://gplv3.fsf.org/wiki/index.php/Compatible_licenses
Not to mention that none of your examples are incompatible. Sure, one could potentially have a license that says "you must use it in nuclear tech", but that seems odd, no?
Incredibly this one requires the definition of deforestation
> That component requires that you not eat meat.
Where's my vegan "open source" license now?
Someone is trying far too hard to make their philosophy studies relevant.
Everyone is aware the model isn't perfect. Making a long list of things you view as issues is a bit meaningless unless you can suggest something better. There are some vague suggestions at the very bottom, but nothing concrete.
It approaches the problem from entirely the wrong end. Code is code and we shouldn't be adding ever more licenses and conditions to it.
Besides the definition of 'evil' is a purely political one. While ICE is a good example, what about Cuba? Many people would claim Cuba is a despotic terrible regime (I wouldn't agree) and US sanctions already stop certain goods and services being provided to Cuba. What about a research department in Iran using code to predict earthquakes? What about here in the UK, the department of work and pensions (DWP) is undergoing a huge IT overhaul, my belief is their current incarnation is borderline fascist and anyone working with them is committing social murder, but it's not clear cut.
But these aren't code's problems to solve. They're ours,they're for politics to solve and that's a messy process that shouldn't interfere with a movement to build a commons of knowledge in the form of code. The same with Amazon or whoever profiting without giving back. I believe, as do many others, that the wealth of people like Jeff Bezos is obscene and unjustifiable (many others, especially here feel opposite). But trying to thrash out these issues through code licenses is just absurd.
While I'm all for things like codes of conduct to improve conditions on open source projects the reasons given here for putting up fences around the 'commons' of open source just seem wrongheaded.
As a final example take decentralised technologies. A lot of actual usage is by people who don't want to be monitored for more nefarious reasons (human trafficking, csa etc) (alongside/counter-to genuinely positive usages like whistle blowing, evading censorship, etc) but that's not a flaw with the technology, we have social structures to deal with that sort of thing.
Why not, call it Code of Conduct part 2, place it right after Diversity Statement and the definition Feelings then ban everyone who disagrees with your view on what evil is. And soon no one will be able to use EVIL mode on Emacs anymore /s
That's all demonstrably false so the entire essay beyond that is a pointless thought exercise which appears to be becoming common with the rise of Internet intellectuals.
Most code is not opened with that goal and everyone is free to share on whatever terms they like. Moreover the 'corporate pillaging' of open source is rarely if ever unrewarded; it often comes with sponsorship, senior positions with good pay or similar benefits.
If you cherry pick rights you can argue this either way. By using proprietary software, the consumer of the software gives up some of their rights to freely use their computing devices, in order for the producer of the software to enjoy a monopoly on deciding how the software is used.
