Introducing the Hippocratic License: a modified MIT license that specifically prohibits the use of open source software to harm others.
firstdonoharm.dev
116
1,124
2,679
Conversation
Can I use software under this license to interfere with fascists' ability to run crowdfunding campaigns?
6
6
60
Is it even established whether a copyright license can limit use, as opposed to redistribution? (Real question.)
3
1
33
has the AGPL (GPL for software run over a network) ever been enforced? i expect "use" in this context to be "supplying use of the software to fulfill a contract" (as opposed to internally using the software), which i imagine is covered under any AGPL precedent
1
2
But even the AGPL revolves around making the software available over a network. I can run modified AGPL code locally with changes and not have to publish them. Right?
1
2
"if software was used in the forest and no one is around to see it, was it ever run?"
if you're using it internally, and no one knows, then it's obviously unenforceable
1
3
but if you're using it internally and distributing to your employees then — assuming the employees aren't under NDA — they can whistleblow?
this is a huge reach and i am incredibly not a lawyer
1
I'm not talking about getting away with it. I'm talking about what copyright is about.
I think I can make a public statement saying "I use modified AGPL software on my laptop, and I'm not giving you the source", and that's fine?
Distributing to employees is an interesting angle
1
4
no, i get what you're saying but if you say "i host modified AGPL software for ICE", then i think that's *not* fine
whereas "i use modified AGPL software *internally* to fulfill the ICE contract" might be fine — though i don't know how distributing to employees fits in here
2
> no, i get what you're saying but if you say "i host modified AGPL software for ICE", then i think that's *not* fine
That's fine as long as you provide the sources to ICE. GPL / AGPL don't require making the sources available to the public but rather the users of the software.
oh, of course. that makes sense.
but if they did require you to provide it to the public, then i think that's enforceable because you've redistributed the software and have to obey the license's terms on that.
1
and then, by extension, perhaps you can limit to whom the software can be redistributed and other terms of redistribution.
but, again, i'm just spitballing here