Hogwash.<p>Source code is as moral or immoral as a box of nails. You can use it for good and you can use it for evil.<p>The reason why we've had such a massive boost in productivity in tech is precisely because of all this unpaid labor. Does it suck that the builders of said code didn't receive much (or any) compensation for their work? Sure, but then again, that was never the point. You don't volunteer at the local SPCA and then complain that you weren't rewarded enough.<p>Open source has eaten the world. Most of the closed protocols, closed formats, closed systems, closed specifications, etc have died over the past decade, precisely because we have freely available interoperable software and specifications.<p>This "ethical code" movement will only gum up the works by mixing in a whole bunch of incompatible licenses: This npm component requires that you not use it in nuclear tech. That component requires that you not eat meat. This one requires that you not have dealings with China. It'll be chaos because nobody could ever satisfy them all, which means that no legal department would ever authorize its use, until a few sane people managing these software collections/repositories finally wake up and say "No crazy licensing allowed."<p>Leave politics out of the tools you build. Politics don't belong there.
> Maybe we’re valuing the wrong thing. What if we look at Open Source values through the lens of moral philosophy, by applying Scanlon’s contractualist theory of morality?<p>Someone is trying far too hard to make their philosophy studies relevant.<p>Everyone is aware the model isn't perfect. Making a long list of things you view as issues is a bit meaningless unless you can suggest something better. There are some vague suggestions at the very bottom, but nothing concrete.
Despite what seems like quite a lot of political overlap with the author I have to disagree with basically the entire article.<p>It approaches the problem from entirely the wrong end. Code is code and we shouldn't be adding ever more licenses and conditions to it.<p>Besides the definition of 'evil' is a purely political one. While ICE is a good example, what about Cuba? Many people would claim Cuba is a despotic terrible regime (I wouldn't agree) and US sanctions already stop certain goods and services being provided to Cuba. What about a research department in Iran using code to predict earthquakes? What about here in the UK, the department of work and pensions (DWP) is undergoing a huge IT overhaul, my belief is their current incarnation is borderline fascist and anyone working with them is committing social murder, but it's not clear cut.<p>But these aren't code's problems to solve. They're ours,they're for politics to solve and that's a messy process that shouldn't interfere with a movement to build a commons of knowledge in the form of code. The same with Amazon or whoever profiting without giving back. I believe, as do many others, that the wealth of people like Jeff Bezos is obscene and unjustifiable (many others, especially here feel opposite). But trying to thrash out these issues through code licenses is just absurd.<p>While I'm all for things like codes of conduct to improve conditions on open source projects the reasons given here for putting up fences around the 'commons' of open source just seem wrongheaded.<p>As a final example take decentralised technologies. A lot of actual usage is by people who don't want to be monitored for more nefarious reasons (human trafficking, csa etc) (alongside/counter-to genuinely positive usages like whistle blowing, evading censorship, etc) but that's not a flaw with the technology, we have social structures to deal with that sort of thing.
The central conceit of the entire essay is that the goal of being an open source provider is to make something that everyone wants to use and in doing so are allowed no choice in how the code is provided and licensed.<p>That's all demonstrably false so the entire essay beyond that is a pointless thought exercise which appears to be becoming common with the rise of Internet intellectuals.<p>Most code is not opened with that goal and everyone is free to share on whatever terms they like. Moreover the 'corporate pillaging' of open source is rarely if ever unrewarded; it often comes with sponsorship, senior positions with good pay or similar benefits.
> They privilege the consumer of Open Source code over the producer, by requiring that the producer give up certain rights.<p>If you cherry pick rights you can argue this either way. By using proprietary software, the consumer of the software gives up some of their rights to freely use their computing devices, in order for the producer of the software to enjoy a monopoly on deciding how the software is used.