|
For me definitely the latter:
That you have the ability to restrict the use of your code based on ethical concerns
I wrote a webcam movement detection security surveillance system around 12 years ago, which gets occasional updates and which is open source.
I stated in the EULA that the software is not to be used to secretly monitor individuals but is only for security or nature watching purposes - knowing that some people would probably not pay any attention to that, but at least giving some them time to pause and think about what they might be about to do.
Yes, I am one of those who thinks that ethics is important and needs open discussion with regards to computer systems.
Although I don't think there was a single lecture on ethics on my computer science course when I was in back in university in 1988.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
I've avoided creating certain types of projects altogether in large part because there are no practical ethics adopted by the field, so there are no guardrails. "Just because you can, doesn't necessarily mean you should" looms large in my consideration and I tend to think about the possibilities of my software. I don't want my code to be weaponized against people or used to abuse them. That means certain projects are simply a no go for me. I don't do law enforcement (with one notable exception where I made something to keep K9 units alive and safe in the car) and I don't do military. I don't do productivity monitoring or other kinds of surveillance, excepting things like closed circuit security systems, which I think are fine.
If there was some sort of ethical standards we all adopted it would give me more freedom to work in arenas I just bow out of entirely, as above.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: "Just because you can, doesn't necessarily mean you should"
I am in complete agreement and it reminds me of the previous spate of "how do I hack a website" questions on the CodeProject forums where the questioner would be sent packing fairly quickly.
When I started writing the webcam security app there was not much out there that did the same and it was only around 5+ years later that the surveillance/snooping apps/IOT devices really exploded.
I think the thing about ethics is that there are a lot of grey areas and, as a massive generalisation, software developers don't tend to like grey areas which may be why the topic of ethics, from a philosophical and moral point of view, is not spoken about a lot in the community.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
I'm actually pretty comfortable navigating grey areas, and interested in the softer, less concrete areas of life. Philosophy is interesting, and moral arguments and debate have value to us collectively. I can see that. I mean fuzzy stuff is fine, as long as I can eek out parameters within the fuzziness that I can live with. The K9 project I mentioned is an example of me making an exception to a hard and fast ethical commitment that I made, without actually violating the spirit of it. That's fine by me. But I am not most developers. I'm a little weird, even among the weird.
I used to sort of categorize developers based on two major approaches to development, and to some degree, life.
One type of developer approach - the most common sort, IME - is methodical and likes to deal in the very tangible and concrete. They tend to produce solid software, and things like TDD even appeal to them sometimes. These are the sort that I think you were alluding to when you said devs don't like grey areas.
The other type of developer approach - a bit less common - is creative, but less methodical. If they were a buddhist, they'd appreciate buddhism, but also blow snot on their robes. Translate that sort of nothing-is-sacred, everything is up to interpretation, to code. I don't want these people testing software, and too many make a project rudderless, but having one or two a team keeps the team thinking around corners, solving problems where creativity is required. These developers can often work with the fuzzy stuff.
I tend to fall into the latter category.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
Code I've written myself and make publicly available would have no restrictions, given that restrictions (even via licensure) are unenforceable. This is especially true for those interested in causing harm aka 'bad actors'.
Code that I knew could be integral to something that caused harm I would not publish in the first place.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
I may be a bit more radical about this but I'd say "who cares about OSI?" Better yet a simple "seal of approval"? I certainly don't. Ever. Whenever I provide code, it is free of moral judgements as to what will be done with it. Whenever such concerns arise, I'd rather not share the code and maybe the app too, or even better I just don't even start coding at all (at least pet projects) because once the cat is out of the box the morals of whoever uses the code cannot be guaranteed.
- Leonardo
|
|
|
|
|
I for one, would rather not have code tied up in ethics discussions. I disagree with your statement
"You have to explicitly be OK with someone using your AI creation to harm kids, to destroy lives, to create scams, to automate cyberbullying, to impersonate loved ones".
That's like loaning your car to your teenage relative, and saying it's equivalent to agreeing to their use of the vehicle to break road laws, do burnouts, and conduct ram raids. I don't think that's the case. As usual, things are not binary "good" or "bad" but but more subtle.
Often, restrictions on use serve to restrict use for the "good guys". The bad people really don't care what you think. Don't want your software used for harmful purposes, define harm. One of the most heinous people of the Nazi regime discovered an efficient means to create nitrate fertilisers. (look it up). Without this discovery, it might be difficult to feed the population of the earth at this point in time. I'm sure he thought he was doing the right thing. Oppenheimer and the Manhattan project created nuclear weapons - was that the right thing? It depends on your perspective. Or rather their perspective - which you don't have a lot of control over.
. . . and then who fundamentally decides. Is it you personally, or a self imposed restriction by the end users, assuming they even read the license.
While trying to control who uses your software is well meaning. In practise, I think you can only do it where you explicitly allow access through a license. Once the software is "open" - it's open.
|
|
|
|
|
When you hear the term "Free code" do you immediately think
a) The code doesn't cost money
b) The code is free to be used in whatever way you want
I'm not after a debate. I'm simply curious, after all these years, as to what a typical developer thinks of when they see those words.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
a
Disclaimer: I'm an ardent capitalist.
|
|
|
|
|
It's all about the Benjamins baby.
Just realized the link to the song may not be kid sister friendly.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
It means READ THE LICENCE VERY CAREFULLY. RUN IT BY THE COMPANY LAWYER (if applicable).
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
ditto
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
In my experience, I have never seen that done. Further, I seriously doubt most corporate lawyers have a clue as to the technology implications of what they are looking at. There is so much "free" or gnu or open source being used, many times with multiple degrees of freedom, we have no idea what in the hell is going on. Example: we license xyz OS. The company pays that license because it DOES NOT WANT TO KNOW. It hides behind the license. This goes on all the time.
Remember the DDOS attack from doorbells? I'm sitting in my office next to the kitchen. I have a smart refrigerator (that I've never connected to) and a smart dishwasher (that I've not connected to) and I think a smart washing machine (that I've...). I can guarantee you that all of them have free/gnu software in them. I'm getting to the point where I despise my smart phone, but I admit to being an old curmudgeon.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
In my place of work we are required to run every licence, including licences for "free" software, past Legal. They are pretty good at understanding the ramifications of the.various licences. A licence is a form of contract, and contracts are their break, butter, and jam.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
yet the issue remains, and I admit going on a rabbit trail from the original post. The tertiary issues are incredible - and I'm talking from an engineering perspective. The licensing and legal issues are trivial. Honestly, there is so much incest with gnu/free/etc code and private party that the horse left the barn a long long time ago.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
charlieg wrote: Honestly, there is so much incest with gnu/free/etc code and private party that the horse left the barn a long long time ago.
There, I agree. When I started work at my current employer, we were not allowed to use any free/open source/public domain code. They only allowed us to use such code after a thorough review of the ramifications, and subject to review by Legal.
EDIT: fixed typo
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
charlieg wrote: Further, I seriously doubt most corporate lawyers have a clue as to the technology implications of what they are looking at.
Interesting idea. I worked at a company where the lawyer would have understood it because he did the contracts for the company which wrote code on contract. But there there was no policy on code use by developers. (Back then it was less generally available but it was getting there.)
As far as I can recall I have never seen any policy about it. And I have worked for a number of companies from day zero start ups to those with thousands of employees. At least several places I was the one that insisted on tracking the licenses.
|
|
|
|
|
I think that someone has not actually looked up to see what the license actually is.
|
|
|
|
|
The bit I quoted?
I want to understand everyone's thoughts here, and if I'm misinterpreting something please clarify it here.
This is solely about the ethics of requiring freedom in the use of software. I've spent 25 years working to spread software as far and wide as possible. The issue is very, very close to the heart for me.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
AI changes everything. We don't even know where this is going.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: The bit I quoted?
In response to the following when I hear someone say that.
"When you hear the term "Free code" do you immediately think"
My first thought is that they did not even attempt to determine what the license is.
Certainly I have run into more than a couple of people who thought that just because they found it on the internet it was free. Even back in the day people would also claim that because they found it in a book or in a magazine.
|
|
|
|
|
I was asking the question without reference to a license, but purely as a "what's the first thing you think of when you hear 'free'".
I'll admit it's a pet peeve. I hear "Free and Open Source" as "source you can review, and that doesn't cost a cent". My gut tells me most people think "free" means "no cost", but the OSI has chosen and continues to choose to use the word to mean freedom. It's always felt disingenuous, but I could very well be in the sheltered minority here (but again: I don't feel I am).
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I am serious though.
When I hear that phrase from a fellow developer my expectation is that they have absolutely no idea about licensing. Not that they didn't look it up but do in fact understand it, but rather that they don't understand the concept at all.
|
|
|
|
|
Code I wrote previously for another project.
As a general rule I don't use other people's code.
|
|
|
|
|
C. The code's owner gave it a sock.
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated.
I’m begging you for the benefit of everyone, don’t be STUPID.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
