this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2024
91 points (97.9% liked)

Asklemmy

43893 readers
1104 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I just learned that Nmap is almost GPL except that they revoked the license specifically for SCO group for their SCO–Linux disputes.

This got me thinking, what do open source programmers think of evil companies or horrible people using their software?

Don't get me wrong, FOSS software by its nature can't be controlled or strictly prevented of being used. But in case of companies like SCO, that is a thing that at least can cause them headache and they risk getting into legal trouble. A programmer for example can modify GPL to make so that his software can't be used by Microsoft or Facebook, but it is GPL for everybody else.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lily33@lemm.ee 20 points 4 months ago (2 children)

The biggest issue is that there isn't a universal agreement on what causes harm. There is agreement on the basics - murder, violence, etc - but they're already illegal anyways, no need to ban them by license.

[–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 4 months ago (3 children)
[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Not exploitation? Addiction? Hatred?

[–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 4 months ago
[–] Catsrules@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 months ago

Ouches for self defence

[–] currycourier@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

I like this one. Now we just gotta get everyone else on board with your definition!

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

That and it's impossible say whether or not a given tool or object will never be used to do harm if wielded by the wrong entity.

Like, say you're someone who makes free bricks. Someone uses the brick to build a house, great, that's what it's made for. Someone uses that brick to shatter a cop's windshield, even better.

But someone can also use that brick to smash in the windows of a school, or even that the house built with the bricks you made is being lived in by a bad person.

No one makes bricks thinking "this could be a weapon, I am responsible for the harm it causes" because its primary purpose as building material is self-evident. It therefore has no inherent morality outside of what people you can't control choose to do with what they have. All the brick maker wants to do is make the best bricks they can.