Skip to main content

New blogpost: An introduction to 'ethical licensing'

Technology ... has always been political. I’ve very little time for discussions which try to separate “tech” and “politics”.

The same is true with licensing models.

Over the last couple of years, I’ve seen more people talking about “ethical licensing”. And, while I’ve yet to see an “ethical licence” come up in the course of my work, I thought it might be an interesting topic for a blog post.


#lawfedi

An introduction to 'ethical licensing'

decoded.legal
#lawfedi
in reply to Neil Brown

modulux
modulux
• •

Interesting post. My view is ethical licences are trying to do too much in hanging on copyright law. The advantage of FOSS is that it's just setting down rules around the hinges of copyright (conveying copies of the work, etc). This seems a lot hazier and more complicated. If a party finds themselves with a copy of a work they legally accessed, can they be compelled to adopt certain behaviour in order to be allowed to run it? I don't know, but I'm dubious. What about an entity that is in compliance at time t0 but not time t1...

I think stuff like the copyrfarleft can be desirable, just not sure if licences are the right tool. Of the ones I've seen I think the peer production licence is the one that seems most plausibly binding: https://civicwise.org/peer-production-licence/

Peer Production Licence - CivicWise

PEER PRODUCTION LICENSE: A MODEL FOR COPYFARLEFT This is the legal text of the Peer Production License. You can also […]
Civicwise
in reply to modulux

Neil Brown
Neil Brown
• •
This seems a lot hazier and more complicated. If a party finds themselves with a copy of a work they legally accessed, can they be compelled to adopt certain behaviour in order to be allowed to run it?


Hmm... I'm not sure I agree, aside from complexities of interpretation.

My sense would be that this is not too different from many licences, which dictate who can do what with the software, in what situations.

in reply to Neil Brown

modulux
modulux
• •
I think the substantive difference is those licences usually have a contractual nature (there's mutual agreement (real or constructed/fictional) and consideration). But FOSS licences don't operate like this, they derive their powers from copyright law alone, no? In which case...
in reply to modulux

Neil Brown
Neil Brown
• •
There's a lot written about this, and it probably depends on jurisdiction, but a lot of commentary approaches FOSS licensing as contracts embodying licences.
in reply to Neil Brown

Neil Brown
Neil Brown
• •

I guess the fun may really start in discussing a distinction between:

  • anyone is licensed to use the code, provided that they comply with x, y, and z; and
  • we only grant a licence to those who meet the following criteria: x, y, and z.

(But then I'm paraphrasing language anyway, so it is likely counterproductive!)

in reply to Neil Brown

modulux
modulux
• •
Yes... I'm not absolutely clear on the bounds of this myself. A licence seems to me to be unilateral in principle. But the logic of a licence that requires an ongoing obligation to do (or not to do) seems more the terrain of contract. In civil law we're not absolutely opposed to a contract without quid pro quo (in some European codes donation is a contract) but one still gets weird results. Also if licencing of this type constitutes a donation I don't want to think of the tax implications of that. shudder
in reply to modulux

Neil Brown
Neil Brown
• •
A licence seems to me to be unilateral in principle.


This feels odd to me.

I can grant my neighbour a licence to come into my garden to trim their hedge, but I don't see as meaning that they can come into it for another reason, or that it would apply to anyone else?

in reply to Neil Brown

modulux
modulux
• •
Mm, good point, need to think about it a little further. It's difficult because while my intuitive sense for a right erga omnes like excluding people from coming into your yard is reasonably strong, my intuition for someone being able to stop someone else to do arbitrary things with their computer is a lot less well-formed. But that doesn't mean the law agrees with me.
⇧