There is no problem. Open source means anyone can use their software as long as they make their modifications public. If you want to add a term that only agree politically with the author can use the software, that is a completely different concept. And a terrible one, it would just serve to fragment the open source ecosystem into different ideological niches.

Just gave it a read, and all I can really say is that there is not real point to the article… it’s just a commentary on open source software that explains some of the perils that exist when people that you don’t want to use your code, do.

It doesn’t convince me in any way that the open source software should not be pursued. What the article leaves out is how people use paid software for the same negative things that they mention in the article. It doesn’t matter. One thing you paid for, the other you have not.

A lot of the critique in the article applies to permissive licenses like MIT. This is precisely why the corporate world has been championing these licenses over GPL.

Article’s entire intent can be summarised in this single line at the end:

“Perhaps the appropriate response is to keep free software away from for-profit actors”

Just another thinly veiled emotive attempt to remove the free-software threat to corporate profits.

No doubt it’s been an unsettling experience for Mastadon’s Rochko. But it’s mighty convenient the microscope just “happens” to be pointed at the OSS part, and only the application layer in this predicament.

Why are they not asking about the brand of server being used in the datacenter? Or the switches? Or the CPU architecture? Should Intel/AMD/ARM be weighing in here? Should we have a discussion about 60 Hz AC Mains power? /s

Incredibly convenient that OSS is the culprit here isn’t it?

I think is blaming the software because some people that uses it. Ok, so must we blame a sisors because someone with bad ideas want to use them? No, the sisors are just a tool, silmiar to software. So blaming them is just a nonsense.

I wonder how an internet run by adobe, microsoft and apple would be. I think what’s written IS wrong because startups continue to appear and without free software they probably would go nowhere. Think about someone trying to build something great but has to pay all upfront cost for a project which is likely going to fail. The article doesn’t take into account research that without this way of thinking would have happened a lot slower. Not to mention the standardization that is a natural consequence of free software.

I think what it’s written is like saying we shouldn’t research vulnerabilities in software because then someone could use that knowledge for nefarious intentions.

There are downsides for everything for sure, but it’s the intent that matters. Also, the downsides for closed source are even worse, so it’s not an alternative anyways

While the author seems to understand the meaning of the license, on a linguistical or grammatical way, he fails to understand its spirit and intent. That is why he suggest restricting commercial use. His suggestion is nothing new, there do exists license by creativecommons.org with this kind rules, but they did not gain any traction.

The main issue, I believe, is to define what is good, what is bad, what is actual hate speech, and to some extent, what even is commercial. Good and bad varies a lot between groups and cultures. While some might view an opinion as hate speech, some other might find nothing wrong with it.

Thus, we cannot and should not put restriction on the kind of use.

Midway through writing this i realized how much of an essay this comment is, so heed this warning i suppose. I’ll just copy the last line here because it summarizes this whole thing pretty well: In the end the improvement doesn’t really come from the software or its license, but from the context that it exists in.

Free Open Source is definitely better than closed software but “better” doesnt mean “good”. Breaking one leg is better than breaking every limb, but I think most people will want to break no limbs, if at all possible. I think it is possible to make licenses that optimize for what in this metaphor would be breaking no limbs, even if we will probably never get to no broken limbs at all. And there are perks about limbs being breakable that we wouldn’t get. Bear with me here.

The thing is, software that we license to stop Bad people stops being entirely free, as there are restrictions to its use. We don’t want, for example, to help a corporation create tools for surveillance. Say someone’s making their own personal digital assistant that has features most digital assistants don’t, and that is free and open source. Now imagine google found it.

Yes, they would have to tell people about your alternative, but most people are still not gonna choose it because the one they give is more easily recognizable and Right There. You have helped google create a tool for surveillance and you can’t do anything about it other than accept it.

If you think that is ok, then you are agreeing that it’s ok to help create tools for mass surveillance (even if not in favor of it). You are allowing it, therefore not against it. This is why true neutrality does not exist, it will always swing towards the ““side”” that is already most powerful.

So what does this mean for open source? Is it bad relative to the rest of current software (which is our current point of reference)? No, it is better. It makes it easier for more people to make things, and even if not all the software that is made is better, a big portion will be, and the portion will be better the more we progress away from the things that make Bad software exist in the first place. It also allows to improve pieces of originally bad software. They are a way to make things better, but they are not where we should stop. I don’t think we’re ready to have software that is restricted away from people who will use it to be nazis and cause harm, because they will also make software that is restricted away from non-nazis and harm reductionists (i just made that up but hopefully what “harm reductionist” means makes sense). And currently, it looks like that’ll be a big section of the software. This kind of fragmentation isn’t good because it means that Bad software can’t become Good, there is no real improvement.

If the world was less full of people who will use software for Bad things, the losses would be lesser, and we could help prevent the Bad from rising again simply by making it harder for them to get tools to spread out.

In the end the improvement doesn’t really come from the software or its license, but from the context that it exists in.