Move over GPL - meet the HPL!

[Sporkman]

The Harm-Less Permissive License (HPL) is a permissive, non copyleft, software license. It is based on the FreeBSD license but with one additional restriction; the "harm-less" clause. It prevents software, licensed under the HPL, to be used for harming humans or animals.

This document discusses the advantages and limitations of HPL and explains the details of the license...

http://www.peta.org/hpl.htm

[MCVenom]

No. No no no no no. I will say nothing on this matter. :P

It's just too ridiculous. Someone, please make these people stop.

[mickie.kext]

http://www.peta.org/hpl.htm

That change makes it non-free and non-open source license. It runs a foul of open source definition and Free software definition.

For software to be Free and Open Source, you must be allowed to run it for any purpose you see fit, including killing kittens.

:lolflag:

[praveesh]

I don't like anybody make proprietary crap from my free(dom) software .

[Sand & Mercury]

No. No no no no no. I will say nothing on this matter. :P

It's just too ridiculous. Someone, please make these people stop.
This.

[Dr Belka]

you gotta be freakin kidding me

[handy]

Fantastic, it has become my license of choice. =D>

[DeadSuperHero]

http://www.peta.org/hpl.htm

This coming from the company that previously killed (http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petasdirtysecret.cfm) 17,000 of their own sheltered animals to "Prove a point."


I'll pass. This is a license of hypocrites and deceivers.

[Phrea]

So, no testing out software on bunnies first, before humans can use it?
Why, that could be dangerous !

[Legendary_Bibo]

I knew a psychotic peta member. She flipped out on me, saying I was abusing my chihuahua puppy because for some unexplainable reason when my chihuahua was a puppy she liked to shove her head in my mouth when I held her and sleep.

[chessnerd]

So I take it this is for scientific programs and such that are open-sourced and later used in animal testing. Interesting.

Before calling this crazy or stupid, you must ask three questions:

Is it useful?
It seems like it has a purpose.

Is there anything already like it already?
I don't think so. In that case, it fills a niche.

Is there a market for it?
Maybe. If you make a program and are worried that your technology will be used by the military or for animal testing, you might want it to prevent such things.

I'll skip my personal opinions about PETA and this license. My point is only this: if people want to use it, it's here now.

The FSF and OSI will have to deal with it now and determine if it is officially an "open-source license" even with the third clause. All I know is that it will not be GPL compatible.

[wilee-nilee]

This coming from the company that previously killed (http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petasdirtysecret.cfm) 17,000 of their own sheltered animals to "Prove a point."


I'll pass. This is a license of hypocrites and deceivers.

That is a ridiculously biased link, go to any humane shelter and the same goes on. There are very few non kill shelters.

The problem is people not neutering and spaying there pets and animal mills to feed the publics need for pets.

Using a bogus link to prop-up your argument is so biased, confirmation bias to be specific.

[Naiki Muliaina]

This coming from the company that previously killed (http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petasdirtysecret.cfm) 17,000 of their own sheltered animals to "Prove a point."


I'll pass. This is a license of hypocrites and deceivers.

Weee by website mades by a troll! Pretty much all shelters have to put animals down. Folk need to spay their pets and help stop the excessive breeding. To be honest, i think we should start spaying humans too. Far to many of us here :tongue:

[ASundman]

That change makes it non-free and non-open source license. It runs a foul of open source definition and Free software definition.

For software to be Free and Open Source, you must be allowed to run it for any purpose you see fit, including killing kittens.



You are quite right, according to the FSF and OSI you have to be able to run it for any purpose. But FSF and OSI don't own the term "free". According to the open dictionary (http://open-dictionary.com/Free):

Free : "Of software, with very few limitations on distribution or improvement compared to proprietary software."... "very few" is not the same as "no".

The detailed license description (http://www.peta.org/hpl.htm), discusses the "free" issue at length. I quote one passage:

"The fact that HPL licensed software is considered non-free according to FSF might sound harsh. We value freedom very much and HPL licensed software grants you far reaching freedoms to use and redistribute your code (and it complies with the remaining three clauses in FSFs free-software definition). However, and this is an ideological bifurcation point, we value prevention of harm higher that the freedom to inflict harm. This makes HPL licensed software non-free according to FSF, but this is a conscious, ideologically motivated, restriction of freedom."

[ASundman]

I don't like anybody make proprietary crap from my free(dom) software .

Your software? Do you mean the software you write? If that is the case, then just don't use the HPL. Use the GPLv3 instead.

Me personally, I don't like anybody making weapons and slaughter factory equipment from my software (the software I write and make available to the open source community), that's why the HPL is right for me.

[ASundman]

I'll pass. This is a license of hypocrites and deceivers.

The license is what it is, with or without PETA. Just because they are talking about it doesn't mean that only people that agree with them can use it. Dismissing the license just because you don't like PETA is like giving up Linux if PETA started advocating the OS.

[wilee-nilee]

The license is what it is, with or without PETA. Just because they are talking about it doesn't mean that only people that agree with them can use it. Dismissing the license just because you don't like PETA is like giving up Linux if PETA started advocating the OS.

Don't worry the quoted poster has nothing nice to say about linux hint, hint, nudge, nudge know what I mean. ;)

[Phrea]

Oh c'mon, lighten up people. :P
It's ridiculous and utterly useless.

[chessnerd]

Oh c'mon, lighten up people. :P
It's ridiculous and utterly useless.

It's not useless, but I have doubts about if it will ever be used...

[Phrea]

It's not useless, but I have doubts about if it will ever be used...

If something isn't used, it's quite literally useless.

[ASundman]

It's not useless, but I have doubts about if it will ever be used...

Quite possibly. But I agree with the opinion in the license discussion (http://www.peta.org/hpl.htm):

"Like most FLOSS proponents, I would like to see a widespread distribution and use of the code that I make available to the community; but I would rather take the risk of no one every using my code than letting a single person or organisation use it to cause harm. So, in conclusion, the ideological "harm-less" principle takes precedence over practical inconvenience and I side with the HPL."

[meho_r]

no. No no no no no. I will say nothing on this matter. :p

it's just too ridiculous. Someone, please make these people stop.

+1

[handy]

I viewed this documentary nearly 3.5 years ago:

http://veg-tv.info/Earthlings

It was the most shocking video footage that I have ever seen & I am over 50 years of age. It affected me profoundly, to the point where I had to become a vegetarian in an effort to have some slight positive effect on the situation.

So anything that has any positive effect on our animal co-inhabitants of this tiny planet will always be very welcome as far as I am concerned.

[sdowney717]

many animals eat other animals. Bugs have brains too.
I worked with a Hindu woman vegetarian who said the test is if it has a brain they would not eat it. But they like seafood and call it the 'flower of the sea'.

[Viva]

many animals eat other animals. Bugs have brains too.
I worked with a Hindu woman vegetarian who said the test is if it has a brain they would not eat it. But they like seafood and call it the 'flower of the sea'.

Take it from somebody born into a Hindu vegetarian family(while I'm not a Hindu any more, my family still is and I'm still vegetarian), she wouldn't be considered a vegetarian if she eats sea animals. A few relatives of mine don't even take onion because they consider it non-vegetarian.

[gnomeuser]

Not an Open Source license as it discriminates on fields of endeavor, so sadly this is not the license that is going to displace the extremist overly political GPL license.

[Shining Arcanine]

Not an Open Source license as it discriminates on fields of endeavor, so sadly this is not the license that is going to displace the extremist overly political GPL license.
What is wrong with the BSD license?

[phrostbyte]

I think this would be considered an EULA (a contract). Since it restricts use, which is beyond the scope of the author's rights under copyright law.

That means it may not be valid in all jurisdictions and even in jurisdictions where it is valid requires the end user to explicitly agree to it during install.

[gnomeuser]

What is wrong with the BSD license?

This isn't the BSD license, it's a BSD derivative with a additional clause aimed at preventing use of software, licensed under the HPL, to be used for harming humans or animals.

Outside of "harm" being poorly defined, this is discrimination against fields of endeavor. E.g. a slaughterhouse couldn't use software under those terms. This directly contrary to the open source definition.

From http://opensource.org/docs/osd

6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

It simply isn't an Open Source license.

[HermanAB]

Anything coming from People Eating Tasty Animals (PETA) should be taken with some salt...

[MCVenom]

The license is what it is, with or without PETA. Just because they are talking about it doesn't mean that only people that agree with them can use it. Dismissing the license just because you don't like PETA is like giving up Linux if PETA started advocating the OS.

But, honestly I would give up Linux. I wouldn't want to be associated with those nutjobs, even if it meant having to switch to some other *nix or...

...A Mac. :lolflag:

[RATM_Owns]

What is this?

I want to be able to slaughter cows with my window manager, dammit!

[ikt]

http://www.peta.org/hpl.htm

what is this I don't even

[sydbat]

All I have to say...

[jetsam]

How do you say it.

I no longer like my GooPLe,
So here's a brand new HooPLe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H_P_Lovecraft)
For all the GooBLe LooBLes
To LOL about in Nance.

Get back to work, please.

[Tibuda]

I still prefer the WTFPL...
http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl

[DeadSuperHero]

I still prefer the WTFPL...
http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl

Best license EVER.

[Sporkman]

Best license EVER.

Public domain.

[Twitch6000]

I still prefer the WTFPL...
http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl

+1 to this,but I prefer the MIT/X11 due to its nicer wording lol.

[Tibuda]

Public domain.


There is no such thing as “putting a work in the public domain”, you America-centered, Commonwealth-biased individual. Public domain varies with the jurisdictions, and it is in some places debatable whether someone who has not been dead for the last seventy years is entitled to put his own work in the public domain.
:)

[3rdalbum]

I invented the GCL (General Contribution License). If you continually use the software, you MUST contribute to it by reporting bugs, telling other people about the software, donating money, making a PPA or some other specified method of contributing.

[Kafubie]

Regan chocolates!!!
Lets all get regan!!!!!! Chocolates!!!!