Bringing ethics back to open source

A presentation at FOSDEM in February 2020 in Brussels, Belgium by Tobie Langel

Slide 1

Slide 1

Bringing back ethics to open source

Tobie Langel (@tobie) tobie@unlockopen.com

Slide 2

Slide 2

First, a disclaimer.

Slide 3

Slide 3

…well, two actually.

Slide 4

Slide 4

  1. [IANAL]: I am not a lawyer.
  2. [WIP]: This is a work in progress.

Slide 5

Slide 5

I don’t have all the answers.

Slide 6

Slide 6

Goal: start a conversation.

Slide 7

Slide 7

So, what are we going to talk about?

  1. A bit of context
  2. A different perspective on the OSD
  3. Let’s look at prior art
  4. What’s missing from it?
  5. Role of corporations
  6. What do we get out of this
  7. Critiques
  8. Next steps
  9. Q&A

Slide 8

Slide 8

Context

Slide 9

Slide 9

So... what is this about?

  • Increasing concerns about the negative impact of tech.
  • Historical context of tech used at scale in Human Rights violations.
  • A desire to do something about it through open source licensing.
  • Previous attempts at doing so. Pushback from gatekeepers (that’s their role, so understandable).

Slide 10

Slide 10

OSI, OSD, 4 freedoms, etc.

  • Open Source Initiative (OSI): a non-profit that is responsible for deciding which license is an open source license.
  • Open Source Definition (OSD): a set of 10 criteria necessary for a license to be considered an open source license.
  • 4 freedoms: The four criteria necessary for software to be considered free software (copyleft).

Slide 11

Slide 11

Desacralizing the OSD*

*OSD = Open Source Definition

Slide 12

Slide 12

Desacralizing the OSD

  • Created in a hurry over 20 yrs ago.
  • Lifted from the Debian Free Software Guidelines. *Never updated since.

Slide 13

Slide 13

4 freedoms list of change

Slide 14

Slide 14

American constitution

Slide 15

Slide 15

EcmaScript language

Slide 16

Slide 16

EcmaScript language

Slide 17

Slide 17

Desacralizing the OSD

  • Expression of the privilege of its authors.
  • Ethical concerns would have been central had the OSD been written in less privileged circles.
  • What if open source had succeeded in spite of the OSD and not because of it? ➢ Consider license adoption & who chooses software (hint: devs, not lawyers).

Slide 18

Slide 18

(Some) Prior Art

Slide 19

Slide 19

(Some) Prior Art

  • Douglas Crockford’s “Good, not Evil” license.
  • The Hippocratic License by Coraline Ada Ehmke.

Slide 20

Slide 20

“Good, not Evil” License

  • MIT license & “Good, not Evil” clause:

“The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.”

Problem: leaves the definition of Good and Evil to interpretation.

Crockford ended-up putting JSON in the public domain instead.

Slide 21

Slide 21

The Hippocratic License

  • Solves the problem of defining Evil by relying on the Human Rights.
  • Doesn’t conflict with criteria 5 & 6 of the OSD by narrowing down limitation to actions (and not people, groups, or fields of endeavor).
  • Problems:
    • Leaves the definition of human rights violation to the courts.
    • No strong adoption story. @tobie

Slide 22

Slide 22

What’s missing?

Slide 23

Slide 23

What’s missing

  • Reliance on internationally recognized and respected body that defines actual violation of Human Rights.
  • Community buy-in and multi-stakeholder support:
    • Maintainers
    • Actual open source projects
    • Nonprofits such as OSI, Apache Foundation, Linux Foundation, etc.
    • Corporations (OSPO, C-suite, Legal)
  • Clear path from existing licenses to ethical ones ➢ Legal aspects, tooling, education, etc.
  • A mindset shift to redefine the norm as respectful of Human Rights.

Slide 24

Slide 24

From Fringe to Norm

Slide 25

Slide 25

Corporations!?

Slide 26

Slide 26

Corporations!?

  • Yes. If corps can’t use it, it’ll never have traction.
  • Corporations often in Prisoner’s Dilemma situation:
    • Would gladly stop infuriating their employees by dropping these small problematic contracts.
    • Problematic contracts often tied to orders of magnitude larger contracts they can’t afford to lose.
    • Provide an excuse to reject problematic contracts without risking the other ones.

Slide 27

Slide 27

What do we get out of this?

Slide 28

Slide 28

A moral compass for our industry

Slide 29

Slide 29

More concretely

  1. Puts Human Rights at the heart of open source & software development.
  2. Human Rights-trained IP lawyers in corporations.
  3. Gives corporations an excuse to reject certain contracts.
  4. Potentially reduces the pool of available software for Human Rights violations.

Slide 30

Slide 30

Critiques

Slide 31

Slide 31

Critiques

  • Other/better way to address this.
  • Risk of ethical license proliferation.
  • Compliance nightmare.
  • Not enforceable, so not worth it.
  • In violation of OSD and/or 4 freedoms.

Slide 32

Slide 32

Next steps

Slide 33

Slide 33

Next steps

  • This is a huge multi-year effort
    • Must be community-backed
    • Assess interest
    • Outreach
  • Figure out where to lead it from
    • OSI?
    • New structure? Support? Volunteers? Funding?

Slide 34

Slide 34

Thank you.

Slide 35

Slide 35

Q&A