@xgranadeCassandra Granade 🏳️‍⚧️ Agree that copyright is a blunt tool, but if we really care about this, shouldn't we legally disallow it, rather than telling people "you're an asshole if you do so"?

I understand that the concern in doing so would be in moving away from a laissez-faire license like the MIT, which could then make redistribution of the software more difficult (Linux distro might not want to include it, etc.) but... Maybe we should bite the bullet and just do it?

Of course, in a few cases it might...

@berdario @xgranadeCassandra Granade 🏳️‍⚧️

Agree that copyright is a blunt tool, but if we really care about this, shouldn't we legally disallow it, rather than telling people "you're an asshole if you do so"?

No. Social pressure works far better than laws / contracts for enforcing behaviour. Laws work best when they reflect the consensus of acceptable behaviour and provide a structure for dealing with outliers. Contracts work best when they describe the intent of both parties and provide a structure for handling misunderstandings or inability of one party to do as they intended.

When laws don’t reflect consensus, you get widespread civil disobedience.

If you put something like this in a license, you get people lying about using AI, or you drive people away from the project because you’ve accidentally blocked a use case that you’d actually be fine with due to poor legalese.

If you make it socially unacceptable for people to use these tools, you cut off word-of-mouth advertising and make it hard for companies that endorse these things to hire.

This is a lesson that copyleft advocates would benefit from learning.

0

If you have a fediverse account, you can quote this note from your own instance. Search https://infosec.exchange/users/david_chisnall/statuses/115886735273254680 on your instance and quote it. (Note that quoting is not supported in Mastodon.)