Subject: [hrpc] Hippocratic License 3.0 - open source license

From: Dietrich Ayala <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 17:40:36 -0500

I'm not involved with this project, but thought it might be relevant
to this group.

HL 3.0 is an open source software license grounded in intl human rights norms.

>From "Advancing Ethical Licensing and the Launch of Hippocratic License 3.0":

"After months of drafting, tinkering, and editing, CAL, in partnership
with the Organization for Ethical Source (OES), has launched
Hippocratic License 3.0 (HL 3.0), an ethical open source software
license designed to: (1) offer software developers a license that
clearly defines what kind of behavior a potential licensor must adhere
to, by basing the ethical standards section of HL 3.0 in international
human rights norms; (2) extend software developers the ability to add
additional ethical standards clauses to further champion a variety of
specific human rights causes; (3) provide software developers the most
enforceable ethical open software license to date; and (4) create an
opportunity for victims of human rights violations to seek legal
remedy through a private right of action."

https://corpaccountabilitylab.org/calblog/2021/10/21/advancing-ethical-licensing-and-the-launch-of-hippocratic-license-30/

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 09:57:27 +0200

Hi Dietrich,

I don't know if this is the right forum, but that's a very interesting 
license.  I do like the concept behind it but can see some challenges.  
What is the best way to provide feedback?

Eliot

On 22.10.21 00:40, Dietrich Ayala wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> hrpc mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
>

---

From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 14:46:08 +0200 (CEST)

> Il 22/10/2021 00:40 Dietrich Ayala <[email-masked]> ha scritto:
> 
>  

This is not an open source license. One of the key principles of open source is that you can use the software however you like, so any license that says "you cannot use this software for this specific purpose", or "you cannot use this software if you are part of this specific group of people", is not an open source license. People are free to write and use this kind of licenses if they want, but they should not call them open source.

-- 
Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange
[email-masked] 
Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 15:17:22 +0200

On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 02:46:08PM +0200,
 Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola=[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 21 lines which said:

> This is not an open source license

You're right. The relevant part of the Open Source Definition
<https://opensource.org/osd> is article 6 "The license must not
restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of
endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used
in a business, or from being used for genetic research."

On the other hand, "open source" is typically used to mean "any
meaning I want". Its use is a clear warning that the people who write
are not trying to inform but to confuse.

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 15:35:19 +0200

On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 05:40:36PM -0500,
 Dietrich Ayala <[email-masked]> wrote 

It's interesting to see that they point towards specific oppressors:

> The Licensee SHALL NOT, whether directly or indirectly, through
> agents or assigns: [...] Be an individual or entity that engages in
> any commercial transactions with the Taliban; or is a
> representative, agent, affiliate, successor, attorney, or assign of
> the Taliban.

I mean, I agree that the talibans are awfully bad and I certainly do
not want to help them. But they are not (unfortunately) the only bad
people on the planet. Why mentioning them and not [insert your most
hated state or organisation]?

While the UDHR certainly provide a common ground to define what is
good and bad, I don't think it will be possible to list the bad guys
in a licence.

BTW, since the licence calls itself "hippocratic", it is worth
mentioning that Hippocrates' oath precisely forbids the doctor to
refrain from healing such or such people. It is a common ethical issue
with Hippocrates' oath: should a doctor heal a bad guy that will
afterwards resume its awful actions?

---

From: Mallory Knodel <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 11:00:10 -0400

> hated state or organisation]?
Equally baffling to me. Why go through the trouble of listing enemies 
when really what's needed is defining bad behaviour a la Hippocrates.

-- 
Mallory Knodel
CTO, Center for Democracy and Technology
gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780

---

From: farzaneh badii <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 11:45:56 -0400

I totally agree Stephane.

Taliban is forming a government and from what I see the international
community is not far from accepting it. If it wants to run the ccTLD, it
will.

Also this is a classic example of how implementation policy can be
conflated with the designing ethically.

-- 
Farzaneh

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 17:51:53 +0200

On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 11:45:56AM -0400,
 farzaneh badii <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 112 lines which said:

> Taliban is forming a government and from what I see the
> international community is not far from accepting it.

It would be a shame and a gross violation of higher principles, but
certainly not the first one in the field of international relations
:-(

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 16:54:05 +0100

Hiya,

On 22/10/2021 13:46, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>> I'm not involved with this project, but thought it might be
>> relevant to this group.
>> 
> This is not an open source license. One of the key principles of open
> source is that you can use the software however you like, so any
> license that says "you cannot use this software for this specific
> purpose", or "you cannot use this software if you are part of this
> specific group of people", is not an open source license. People are
> free to write and use this kind of licenses if they want, but they
> should not call them open source.

There's also the question of efficacy. A well meaning license
condition on use of OCB mode ([1] I think reflects the latest
in a series of attempts at redoing that) was at least in part
responsible for no one being willing to adopt that for maybe
a decade or more. I believe it also resulted in a pile of
legal work for the inventor and for those who wanted to use
the mode over the years.

Encumbered crypto might be a bit of a special case though
for historic reasons. Or OTOH, it may well be that exactly
the same things would be seen with any encumbrance of this
nature.

Cheers,
S.

[1] https://www.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/ocb/license.htm

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 17:58:50 +0200

All technology is dual use.  What's interesting about this license, at 
least in concept, is that it shifts the burden of that dual use onto the 
user, and makes someone accountable for that use.  I don't know if it's 
enforceable but it sure is interesting.  I agree it's a mistake to talk 
about individuals and not behaviors.

Eliot

---

From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 18:32:01 +0200 (CEST)

> Il 22/10/2021 17:58 Eliot Lear <[email-masked]> ha scritto:
> 
>  
> user, and makes someone accountable for that use.  

People are already accountable for what they do. If they use a piece of software to commit crimes, they will be prosecuted for those crimes.

On the other hand, this license attempts to make people accountable for what they do *to the author of the software they use*. This is IMHO not the role of a software developer. 

As a developer, I understand the desire to make sure that the effort you put in writing code won't be exploited to do bad, but then, if that's what guides you, you do not really share the philosophy behind free software. Open source is about technical cooperation in social diversity, not about sharing causes and world views. Free software is about freedom, which necessarily includes freedom to do evil (and suffer consequences for that).

Also, the success and value of open source depends on the predictability of its legal conditions. Efforts have been made for over twenty years to reduce variations and standardize clauses so that in the end you mostly need to cope with three different flavours (permissive, copyleft and weak copyleft) and you are allowed to combine codebases from hundreds of sources as long as the flavours match. Just imagine a world in which each author of a library starts adding exclusionary clauses (called "modules" in this license) as they like - one against anyone using coal for heating, another against Israel, a third one against those who cultivate palm oil and so on. It would be impossible to combine codebases for general usage in mass products and services, as you'll never know whether a customer of your customer will use your code that includes that library in one of those contexts.

By the way, it is also unclear whether and how this approach could practically advance any of those causes or human rights in general.