Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Hackers Fight Censorship, Human Rights Violations (eWeek)
eWeek looks at the
Hacktivismo Enhanced-Source Software License Agreement (HESSLA).
"Under the HESSLA, users are free to make changes to applications
covered by the license and redistribute them, but the agreement also gives
them the right to sue if they find someone using the application for
malicious purposes. There is also a provision that dictates if any
government uses the software as part of a scheme that violates human
rights, the government thereby waives its right to sovereign immunity from
prosecution in foreign courts."
(Log in to post comments)
Interesting but impractical Posted Nov 27, 2002 21:00 UTC (Wed) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] As the recent fiascos relating to human rights (eg, Durban) have shown, some people have rather... odd notions of human rights. What happens if someone claims the United States is violating human rights by permitting the death penalty? It's a dangerous license clause.
Interesting but impractical Posted Nov 27, 2002 21:56 UTC (Wed) by a_hippie (guest, #34) [Link] [What happens if someone claims the United States is violating humanrights by permitting the death penalty?] Then someone would have discovered that the U.S. *is* violating human
Interesting but impractical Posted Nov 28, 2002 1:56 UTC (Thu) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] America has the highest prison population of any country in the world.America is one of only 4 countries in the world that allows the death penalty for minors. America is the only country in the world that allows the death penalty for the mentally handicapped. "Country" here means: land mass with an internationally recognised government. Oh yeh, and don't forget that they spy on you, encourage software patents Ciaran O'Riordan
Human Rights and the Death Penalty Posted Nov 28, 2002 15:40 UTC (Thu) by tres (guest, #352) [Link] I thought that the Supreme Court recently ruled that the Death Penalty was unconstitutional for the mentally handicapped. I may be mistaken but I thought that a ruling came down about a year or so ago against it. Too lazy to do a search to find out -- maybe someone else is motivated enough to do it.The Death Penalty is nothing more than a political platform for politicians to tug at the heart strings of those wanting revenge anyway. If you look at the financial differences between life imprisonment without the possibility of parole and death it is cheaper to cage someone for the remainder of their lives than it is to provide them with a second trial, endless appeals, and taxpayer paid for defense counsel throughout it all. Both solutions remove that particular threat from society on a permanent basis. Personally I would prefer to die than to be caged for the remainder of my life! Mentioning that -- even while on trial for a capital offense -- will get you placed on a suicide watch though. Go figure!!! Life -- What a long strange trip its been! 8-)
Interesting but impractical - OT Posted Nov 29, 2002 18:12 UTC (Fri) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link] America is the only country in the world that allows the death penalty for the mentally handicapped.This is in contrast to some other countries who apparently don't even allow prison sentences for the mentally handicapped. A recent case is Stefano Savorani, who hijacked a Paris-bound Alitalia airliner a few days ago. He had previously hijacked an Air France plane to Paris in 1999, but for some inexplicable reason was not incarcerated, giving him a second opportunity. From what I recall France dropped charges, claiming that he was mentaly ill. A nice break for him, but a rather big risk for other members of the society in which he lives.
Their hearts are in the right place, but this won't work Posted Nov 27, 2002 22:01 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] I'd like to rid the world of human rights violations, too. But does anyone really believe that governments that imprison, torture, and murder their own people will be swayed by a license clause and the prospect of a civil suit in a foreign nation by people who give away their own software and thus have no revenue with which to fund their own legal staff?I considered this when creating the Open Source Definition, which does not allow a license that discriminates regarding groups or fields of endeavor. In other words, the license under discussion would not be considered Open Source, no matter how laudable its goals. I had the example of the old license for the Berkeley SPICE circuit simulator, which explicitly prohibited use by the police of South Africa. This license persisted for years after apartheid ended. Another example was pro-life and pro-choice groups - and the prospect that some people would want to prohibit one, and some the other. Yet another example was the U.S. Military, which through ARPA has extensively funded Free Software development - BSD being the best example. And I probably think there are unethical elements to your religion, and you might think the same of mine. So I decided to rule this sort of thing out of the OSD. I think we would do better to simply promote the most widespread possible use of Free Software, and the free dialogue among peoples that Free Software will facilitate by preserving an open Internet. By being the example of a free people, we lead others into the desire for freedom. But we have much work to do in our own countries. There's not much positive to say regarding civil liberties in the U.S. of late. Bruce
Their hearts are in the right place, but this won't work Posted Nov 28, 2002 8:54 UTC (Thu) by beejaybee (guest, #1581) [Link] Bruce, as usual your comment makes _perfect_ sense.However, I think there may be one restrictive clause which may be added to an open software license - specifically that noone may use the software in any application designed to restrict other people's use of it.
Their hearts are in the right place, but this won't work Posted Nov 28, 2002 15:51 UTC (Thu) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] Again, this is very vague. I can say that ssh is designed to restrict my "use of it" on my router that connects your computers (i.e. my ability to spy on you).I believe that any software license is non-free if it restricts the use beyond the limitations already estabished by the copyright law.
Their hearts are in the right place, but this won't work Posted Nov 28, 2002 20:34 UTC (Thu) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] Well, in proposing such a thing, you should think through situations where it would be applied and their consequences. For example, suppose it's applied to /bin/login . Some poor external person who I haven't given a login will not be able to get on my system and copy the software... and do other damage. Would the license restrict that?I think this is why for years RMS could not have a system that could read web pages - he doesn't believe in shutting anyone out of his computer. Unfortunately, he also doesn't have time to be system administrator of a sandbox. I think if you spent more time on this, your proposed language would be somewhat longer, less vague, and more qualified. Thanks Bruce
Their hearts are in the right place, but this won't work Posted Nov 28, 2002 21:15 UTC (Thu) by dang (subscriber, #310) [Link] It may not work in lots of ways, Bruce, but that doesn't mean that the gesture is idle. AT least in the US, the executive, legislative, and judical arms of government are what-me-worry conservatives, actively advancing the interests of the status quo; and there is really nothing in popular media or in voting behavior that pushes hard against this. We desperately need political, legal, and PR gestures of all kinds to even have a hope of being heard let alone generate public debate or political pressure. Failure is to be expected and it is ok. Just fail publicly and loudly. In time, that does a lot more good work than you'd expect. Heck, look at how well that strategy worked for Reagan and the Christian Right in the US. There wasn't much change in message that took Reagan from joke to presidency. Or Ralph Reed from whacko to serious player. Political legitimacy often is more a matter of having voice than having anything to say; and only power, money, or persistance is going to get you voice.
Their hearts are in the right place, but this won't work Posted Nov 28, 2002 22:37 UTC (Thu) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] It's a license agreement. I think the US government will rather pay more taxpayers' money to develop alternative software than to enter an agreement with a group that is so clearly poised to sue the government. The same applies to any other government.There is no point is discussing an agreement if you don't trust the other side and admit it openly.
Talk about bean-headed nonsense... Posted Nov 27, 2002 22:01 UTC (Wed) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link] So an evil dictator who causually orders the murder of anyone expressing a dissenting opinion and scoffs at international pressure for reform is going to download a bit of software and say, "oh, a licence agreement! I wouldn't want to violate its terms. I guess I'll have to be nice from now on."Yeah. Sure.
Talk about bean-headed nonsense... Posted Nov 28, 2002 10:35 UTC (Thu) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link] Your comment is still more pertinent then Perens' above.I just want to make sure you include Evil Dictators (TM) as George Bush Jr. and his sidekick Tony the Pony. ;-)
Check the Date Stamp Posted Nov 29, 2002 16:29 UTC (Fri) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link] Perens and I posted within sixty seconds.And while I didn't choose Dubya (like the majority of Americans who voted), I think it's preposterous to claim that he and Tony Blair are murdering dictators.
|
|
||||||||||||