raisely / noharm Goto Github PK

Overview

Super trawling and other destructive/unsustainable forms of fishing should be added to the exclusion list

Proposed Resolution

Find a good definition of unsustainable fishing and add it to the exclusions

Overview

It seems like this license could potentially fall under discrimination simply based on speech.

What keeps project owners using this license from discriminating based on personal differences and beliefs?

Is this a limited open source license by definition?

Proposed Resolution

Overview

As of the time of writing, I have an implementation on creating a license from scratch. The idea came from my comment on this issue.

Proposed Resolution

I would like the Raisely team to oversee my progress on my fork and see how it can be improved, which is why I opened this issue.

The name could be associated with the Just World Hypothesis.

Everyone get's what they deserve ie rich people and poor people are that way because of their decisions, not systemic failure.

Not the best association for a license with a progressive bent :-/

Thank you for this idea. You might want to consider specifying the licence. My suggestion would be to add the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The declaration states universal rights, many countries already have agreed upon. It includes most of the formerly issues as well:
http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights

Overview

In Brazil we have a increasing amount of politicians and companies lobbying to increase and help to spread agrochemicals use in general agriculture.

We all know that agrochems is not healthy and there's plenty of research to prove that damages people's life.

Globally we have a very increasing movement of people working with organic food production.

Proposed Resolution

We include agrochemicals that cause potential damage to people's life. The problem with that is there's some agrochemicals that don't cause damage.

Any other ideas of how can we embrace this?

The more I think about it, I don't think "Free World" is a good name for the license. Freedom is broad reaching, and this license is not "free as in speech". It's by definition not free and is restrictive.

Some alternatives:

• Just World License
• Better World License
• Sustainable World License
• Ethical World License

Ethical stands out for me since it's a world already being used for similar projects, particularly in investment. Ethical investment would be consistent with the rules here.

Thoughts? @murraybunton @chrisjensen

The license wants to avoid having the code be used by those who wish to frustrate the freedom of workers to unionise.

Maybe it could be more general to say the freedom of workers to organize.

It may sound like splitting hairs, but some workers may choose to go with a federative or an anarcho-syndicalist model, instead of a union; which is also a valid form of organization that people in power may want to suppress as much as a union.

As highlighted in stryker-mutator/stryker-js#1061 we'd need some clarity around indirect harms resulting from using services of a company that uses services of a company that causes harm.

5. This software must not be used by any organisation, website, product, or service that:
   ii. lobbies against, or derives a majority of income from actions that discourage or frustrate:

• democratic processes

The rule refers exclusively to "democratic processes", basically elections. However, I think that this licence should protect democracy and freedom as such, not just individual components. This would be possible, for example, by including the principle of the "free democratic basic order" as an asset to be preserved. This principle is bindingly laid down in the German constitution (see Art. 18 GG) and was defined in a ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court as follows:

"A liberal democratic basic order within the meaning of Article 21 II of the Basic Law is an order which, to the exclusion of any rule by force or arbitrary power, constitutes a rule of law based on the self-determination of the people according to the will of the respective majority and on freedom and equality. The fundamental principles of this order include at least: respect for the human rights concretised in the Basic Law, above all for the right of the personality to life and free development, the sovereignty of the people, the separation of powers, the accountability of the government, the lawfulness of the administration, the independence of the courts, the multi-party principle and equality of opportunity for all political parties with the right to form and exercise an opposition in accordance with the constitution."

I find this to be exactly in keeping with the nature of the licence and thus propose the following amendment to the above rule:

• democracy, democratic processes, the rule of law, the separation of powers or the free democratic basic order of a state.

James Long had a few suggestions to ban use by:

• alcohol producers
• weapons manufacturers
• factory farming companies

I'd be interested in seeing this brought in. Alcohol and weapons are commonly screened out by ethical investment funds (see https://www.choice.com.au/money/financial-planning-and-investing/superannuation/articles/australian-ethical-super-funds).

Alcohol

Alcohol is probably a bit controversial. There's certainly an argument that in small amounts, it's not a problem. However, research indicates that the majority of profits come from problem drinkers: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jan/22/problem-drinkers-alcohol-industry-most-sales-figures-reveal

Perhaps we could make an exemption for micro breweries/distilleries/vineyards.

Weapons manufacturing

We do already have a section that prevents activities that lead to warfare. However, defence contractors could argue that they are working towards peace instead. An explicit ban on weapons manufacturers seems reasonable to me.

Factory farming

We have another issue open about animal rights that might have some broader implications. Factory farming seems pretty clear cut to me.

Overview

I really want an accepted open source license that has moral clause. I got excited when I saw this license but immediately started disagreeing with a few stances it takes. I've 👍and 👎 a few issues, but exactly what I disagree with doesn't actually matter. Nobody is going to agree on everything and that's ok. We don't have to agree, this can exist being a specific set of ideas about what does harm.

But I want to propose something different. Don't decide what's harmful. Let the United Nations do that. Instead focus on getting a new type of open source license, one with a moral clause accepted as a standard for use today.

I think @chrisjensen wrote more eloquently then I can. They summed up the current reaction from the Open Source Community. He states the argument against a moral clause is a violation of "freedom 0"

While there are sound reasons to demand that FOSS software licensing prevent proprietary or commercial restrictions, it is unacceptable to demand that participation in the open source movement requires people contribute their hard work and generosity to any and all unconscionable possible uses in the name of freedom 0.

And these are the same arguments were used (and still are) against the GPL. The GPL has it's own social mission. And similar to when GPL was released (more like v2) there's work to be done in figuring out how it works. There's legal and commercial considerations. How do humans use and make software with a moral clause license?

As a global society we have already set a moral standard around protecting humans. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a generally agreed upon standard we can hold people's behavior to. It's a low bar for everyone to clear, and unlike (despite our best intentions) what we design here, it's pretty much beyond reproach.

There are a few good counterpoints.

1. It's not a treaty or super well defined. True but there's a long body of work dealing with that, and I bet we can find a treaty we could use that encompass it. An "implementation" of UDHR
2. Countries already have laws that cover most of it. Except when they don't, or when they have exceptions (like the USA and ICE), or loopholes. Licenses don't really matter on a state scale, they matter on a person to person one. A tyrannical government is just as likely to follow the GPL as they are to follow a moral clause. However people building software with the license will know it and see it every day.
3. It's leaves out a lot of harm protection.

It's a low bar, much lower than what's been done here, and I think that's important. In order to survive the fight for acceptance, we don't argue over the morals themselves.

Proposed Resolution

There should be more research and discussions with people who actually help set global no harm standards. There are a bunch of groups at the UN worth talking to, including the Department of Public Information Outreach Division, the (http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD.aspx), United Nations Commission on Science and Technology for Development, and maybe a librarian or an ethics professor?

And then there's the open source communities who have faithfully gotten software to where we are today, this is probably not even a new idea to them. I haven't asked. The Free Software Foundation will be our stanchest critics, The Open Source Initiative coined the term open source and literally approve open source licenses,

(And please do excuse me if this whole idea is out of line. I haven't been along for the ride, and I've only been researching and discussing this for a few weeks not a few years. So I'm not aware of all the work you've already done.)

1948 when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was published, was a long time ago so there's bound to be an update by now. Whatever the minimum level of "no harm" that the global community has agreed to, I want us to start there, so we have a better chance of widespread adoption.

Thank you for your time.

Overview

Ideally, before hitting a v1.0 of the license, we would get legal advise on the wording of the license and aspects of copyright law.

As this is currently a volunteer project, we'd need to find pro-bono help for this.

As per the comment here, not everyone likes BSD-3 as a base license. Would it be possible to have a variant of the license based on the Apache license as well?

(Note: I sympathize with intention of the license, please don't treat this issue as itself taking a stance on the license itself; I'm not trying to get into discussing the merits of the license itself here)

The term "open source" is really only correct when following the broad consensus around the Open Source Definition.

Your license does not meet that definition. It is closer to copyfarleft licenses in that it discriminates in some way about the users or uses.

Please either refer to your license using a different term like "shared source" or at least whenever you mention "open source" make it clear that this does not actually fit the definition.

Overview

Need to add continuous to definiton, as described in #2

Proposed Resolution

Add continuous to the forest definition

"Universal access to human rights" would likely be interpreted by the Universal Declaration. Article 19 of the declaration is at odds with the restrictions on hate speech in paragraph 4a.

Is there a reason for not using a copyleft license?

Basically, there are companies that specialise in finding zero-day security vulnerabilites in software (“zero day” stands for “zero days since the developer discovered the vulnerability”, meaning it hasn't been discovered at all). Since they sell that information to cyber criminals and even authoritarian countries, their business model directly harms the digital security of end users as well as our critical infrastructure. That's why I propose banning it altogether.

Possible phrase to be included in the licence:

the systematic trade with zero-day security vulnerabilites in software accessible to the general public, without disclosing them to the public, the developer or the responsible state authority

First of all: I understand your goals and support them. People who want to write ethical software should have tools and frameworks to support them in doing so.

However, what you are doing is incompatible with Open Source and Free Software, both the ethos and the legalities. You're trying to solve a different problem and I wish you the best of luck, but legalities and licensing are already confusing enough without muddying the waters this way. So you really shouldn't be using the term Open Source in your documentation, except as a reference where you make it clear how what you are doing differs.

Maybe talk about community software, or DIY, or shared source...? There are a bunch of other terms that will get your point across, I think?

Thanks! 😃

Overview

I've seen a case of confusion that democractic processes refers to form of government. I can see that the term "democratic" does bring with it certain frames that are hard to separate from thinking about western democracy specifically.

It might be worthwhile to find an alternative wording that doesn't bring that frame with it

Proposed Resolution

None yet, need to evaluate the wording

Hi! Why is nuclear energy classed as a bad "thing". The license looks ok otherwise. It would be cool to have projects like this with unbiased views. There have been only three major nuclear accidents during the history of nuclear energy. Burning coal for example is a far worse thing, than using nuclear energy. The industries will not accept using solar or wind power in the near future, so it would be unwise to discriminate nuclear power as it's a CO2 free form of energy. Please do not talk about evil corporations, i understand the point, but it makes a project like this biased. You probably get it; the license looks like an expression of personal opinion.

• violence (except when required to protect public safety)

The anti-violence rule is, in my opinion, unclear and incomplete. What about self-defence? If I am attacked and simply have to defend myself (which has nothing to do with public safety), I would be in breach of the licence. Therefore, I would suggest the following change:

• unlawful wilful bodily injury

You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and may provide additional or different license terms and conditions for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your modifications, or

for any such Derivative Works as a whole,

provided Your use, reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies with the conditions stated in this License.

Should this be understood as a) or as b)?

• a) You may choose a different licence.
• b) You may choose a different licence for your modifications, but unchanged parts of the original work must remain under the Do No Harm Licence.

If it's meant like b), I think it should be clarified more.

Overview

Hello friends. I really appreciate what you are doing here
but this is (in my opinion) not the right way to do it.

A software license just dictates how copy, modification and distribution
will take place following copyright standards. And today we got plenty of licenses to choose from.

A software is merely a tool. Similar to a knife.
You can not control how it will be used for. It can be used for delicious food cooking
or murder. It depends on people.

And because it depends on people different moral values and ethics
will collide. So a single license would not be enough for all the use cases and different world views.
Besides that, you cannot legally obligate anyone to comply them or persecute them if they broke them so putting those conditions in a license is meaningless.

With a copyright license you can legally act only if they didn´t follow any of the copy, modification or distribution rules nothing more.

The solution is not creating a new license, instead, is better to create an example contract or terms of service so organizations
could adhere to higher ethics values that they consider "No Harm". In
that way you can take legal action if any of your users, customers, partners or anyone that wants to use your work does unethical activities.

Proposed Resolution

• Use the already available licenses for software
• Create example ToS and contracts that organizations could use and customize to adhere the "No Harm"

Futher Reading

Read this article of the freeworldlicence

However, copyright law provides power only over the copying and modification of a work.
Once someone actually has legally obtained a copy of a computer program, copyright law alone cannot restrict their right to run it.

This meant that I could not frame The Free World Licence as a straight copyright
licence AND include a legally binding clause that would restrict execution to free platforms only.
The only alternative was to frame it as a commercial contract under which I could include terms of any kind.

An additional incentive for employing contract form came from an analysis of the GNU GPL's no-warranty and no-liability clauses. It turns out that, because copyright law covers only copying and modification, a straight copyright licence such as the GNU GPL does not have the power to require the end-user to agree to these terms.

The terms are therefore advisory only; they stand as warnings, not as binding conditions of use (for the GNU GPL software end user anyway; those who distribute become bound by the GPL contract). In contrast, a commercial contract may invoke these terms as binding conditions of use.

While warnings may be a strong enough form to ward off most legal danger, my lawyer strongly advised me to employ the contract form so as to make the no-warranty and no-liability clauses unambiguously legally binding conditions of use.

Cheers 👍

Overview

Alcohol is a very pernicious substance, that generates :

• harmful effects on your body (liver, brain, stomach, etc.)
• great physical addiction
• serious social issues (violence, suicide and depression, property damage, date rape, etc.)

The companies selling those products are aware of the damage they're generating on society, and they not only keep selling, but they spend great amounts of money to advertise their products through lies and manipulation (specially to the younger targets possible in order to create addiction that would keep them as future clients).

With those facts we can consider that alcohol is way worse than tobacco: at least both are bad for the body and create addiction, but alcohol also is behind lots of social problems we face day to day.

Proposed Resolution

The license should restrict companies that live from selling alcohol from using the licensed work, by adding alcohol on the banned activities on the section 5 list.

Updated as GitHub Community is moving to GitHub Discussions

Overview

Since what has been going on in the past decade, especially with the Russo-Ukraine war, I've been noticing more cyber attacks lately on the news. If you all don't believe me, check out monitor.firefox.com/breaches to see how much damage has been caused by data breaches alone. I saw an even bigger loophole in the world of open source: a library/framework (ex. Angular, Lodash, Laravel, etc.) can be (ab)used not only by large organizations like Facebook, but individuals/groups as well. Essentially a developer's library/framework can be - and is probably being - used to cause massive collateral damage. For a library developer, knowing that they are enabling a hacker to cause more harm can be demoralizing.

Proposed Resolution

There's not much I can do here as I am not a legal expert, but I can tell you that there probably needs to be a way to make the vague concept of "no hacking/phishing[/...] allowed" into a less ambiguous phrase. However, I did post topics on Mozilla Discourse and GitHub Community (old) (new) that go deeper into the subject; these should help clarify the subject further.

Remarks

I would like to thank the group/organization behind this project for making a license for the greater good! I am hoping to make a few repos public, but I don't want to use current licenses that will allow harm.

Nuclear Energy is by far safest and least toxic power source humanity has access to.
Other energy sources have dramatically larger ecological footprint (solar, wind especially).
Coal power plants lead to over a million human deaths every year.

Also, it would prevent using your software on rowers like Curiosity

Edit: it would be most hypocritical or arrogant to include "nuclear" but omit coal, natural gas, solar or wind energy.

If this is to be a license for a just world, then it should be developed in consultation with all the people who's lives we hope to improve through the use of the licence.

We should invite developers (or even non-developers) from other groups to review and contribute to the license, especially to ensure that we don't inadvertently create unintended consequences that harm minority groups.

I invite you to share the NoHarm license with any such groups, or others that would similarly help make the license more inclusive of those we seek to help.

• Womens rights
• LGBTQ rights
• People of colour
• Indigenous or first peoples
• persons living with a disability
• Youth
• Elderly
• Persons in the developing world

How about banning producers of junk food? (Not sure how to precisely define this)

Overview

Nuclear energy is currently the cleanest and one of the most economically viable source of renewable energy available through current technology.

I mostly want to understand why it's listed.

Proposed Resolution

Remove nuclear energy from the list of forbidden organizations/promotions allowed to use code under this licence. Alternatively, please provide an explanation on why it's there in the first place.

Overview

There are certain ways in which animals are abused by today’s society which can be seen as problematic from an ethical perspective, but also in a larger context as some hunting practices are also problematic in bringing endangered species closer to extinction or being harmful in other ways for the environment.

Proposed Resolution

The license should include a section that also treats the issue of animal abuse. As the definition of this term is highly vague and depends on different individual and/or cultural factors, the license should include just the worst of all practices which can be defined in a precise way. Otherwise, it could exclude self-suppliers, (small) farms or people (e.g. Inuit) who depend e.g. farming or hunting to sustain their own life. I think it is also an important aspect of a do-no-harm philosophy/license to include a paragraph about animal abouse. However, I am not absolutely sure what should be included in here and what should be better left out. As I probably missed a lot, let’s have discussion on that topic. :-)

Section 4.a should add a bullet point like this:

• animal abuse

With a definiton of animal abuse under We define:

Animal Abuse: The exploitation of animals for entertainment purposes which which depend on harming or killing of animals, including animal fights, circus shows incorporating wild animals (e.g. dolphins, whales or lions). And further the production of (food) products which cannot be produced under the premise of raising animals in a way that is appropriate for their respective species (e.g. foie gras, veal), which causes them extreme pain (e.g. practices involving skinning, eating or cooking animals alive) or that promote the consumption or killing of endangered species (e.g. ortolan buntings, ivory, whaling). Finally unnecessary animal testing (e.g. for the development of cosmetical products) which involves harming, tormenting or killing of animals for the mere sense of making profit, without serving a higher purpose for humanity.

Some sources for further information:

• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3960266/Octopuses-dismembered-newborn-rodents-dipped-boiling-oil-frogs-skinned-ALIVE-world-s-cruelest-dining-experiences-revealed.html
• https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/ortolan-bunting-slaughter-ignored-france
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foie_gras

We just got our first troll (yay for awareness!)

As part of heading towards a v1, I'd like to call for comments from groups of people that are not straight, white males, but we need to make it a safe space in order to do so.

I came across this article on medium, but will have to wait till the start of the month to access it: https://medium.freecodecamp.org/github-privacy-101-how-to-remove-personal-emails-from-your-public-repos-58347b06a508

Any other suggestions welcome.

Overview

"Ethics" license based upon 3 clause BSD violates the Open Source Definition:

5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups

The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.

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.

Proposed Resolution

Remove ethics check, or remove the claim you are open source software.

Overview

Trackers are used on websites and in mobile apps to spy on the user and to find out what other internet services he uses, based on cookies or fingerprinting. This is obviously highly privacy-invading, which is the reason why, for example, many privacy-concious people use uBlock Origin and why tracking without consent is prohibited in the EU by the GDPR.

Proposed Resolution

Therefore, I propose that tracking is banned. For reference, here's the For Good Eyes Only Licence's definition of trackers:

Trackers are software designed to

1. collect information about a user or mark him/her in such a way that
   he/she can be almost reliably recognised at a later point in time or
   across different websites or (digital) services or to

2. derive identifying data points about a user’s personal preferences,
   behaviour or other personal characteristics,

without this being immediately imperative and thus justified by the absolute
core function of the overall software.

This is a bit of a tangent but is there any kind of license for SaaS providers who would refuse service to customers who work in non-ethical industries? Would be cool to have both.

Historically religion is known as the cause of most deaths, armed conflicts, persecutions. Otherwise described as "harm" which is this license is about.

Overview

Having read through the open issues on this repository there's a lot of issues titled "consider adding X", and there's always going to be disagreement between license users about which issues are hard lines for them and which they're okay with.

Proposed Resolution

My proposal is to move the list of specific activities which license users wish to avoid into a separate appendix which is referenced in the license and change point 4 of the license to something like:

This software must not be used by any organisation, website, product or service in breach of sections A; 1-3,6,9-11 and 15 and B of APPENDIX A of this license available at raisely/NoHarm/APPENDIX_A.md

This way we can give everyone the ability to submit additional activities to be prohibited by license without forcing the license version to be revved every time something is added or removed.

Overview

If the code is shared in countries where the UDHR is blocked by firewalls, then users are unable to understand the license.
We may also want to add greater level of specificity, as the UDHR is interpreted differently by different nations.

Overview

The license forbids the use of software for "the burning of forests". But what about controlled burning, which is used to maintain the health of ecosystems?

Proposed Resolution

Change the "burning of forests" line to say something like "burning of forests, except for controlled burning where required to maintain the health of an ecosystem or mitigate danger".

See comment here: stryker-mutator/stryker-js#1061 (comment) "How many changes to the license can we expect in the near future when it becomes more popular and gets more pull-requests?"

What would happen if someone adopts an older version of the license and more restrictive terms then get added on?

Overview

The use of the word "master" can be triggering to some individuals, if this project is really about "no harm" this repository should set an example.

Proposed Resolution

Rename the master branch to something less triggering like, head, edge or main.

Overview

While the majority of the porn is definitely produced for a male audience and includes an often very problematic representation of female actors, there are also artistic forms of porn (one could say "arthouse-porn") whose are e.g. feminist or for exploring different kinds of eroticism. Those should not be considered anti-ethical or harmful.

Proposed Resolution

I think the license should differentiate between sth. like abusive/sexist porn an porn which is art-orientated (thought this is probably just a small percentage of all porn produced). There are also examples in avant-garde art which blur the lines between art and porn. However, I’m not an expert on this topic (haha, who would admit that anyway … ;-) ) and neither am I familiar with the terminology of porn, so further input is needed if there is any interest at all for including more differentation on this topic in the license.

Let's say there's an organisation like Engie which currently runs coal power stations but is actively moving towards 100% renewables. They might want to use software licensed under JWL but have concerns that they would violate clause 4b. How do we deal with that? Would they raise an issue here asking if they're allowed to use it?

Some of the clauses are a bit grey (particularly 4b) in my opinion and would therefore prompt these kind of questions.

I really love the motivation behind this license, but I will not use it in it's current form because of:

4. This software must not be used by any organisation, website, product or service that:
   a) lobbies for, promotes, or derives a majority of income from actions that support or contribute to:
   • pornography

Sex is not harmful. Neither is pornography. Nor sex work in general. Sure there are forms of pornography/sex work which promote violence or are abusive/illegal, but banning it all together is also very harmful and dangerous.

Sex workers already have things really tough, and software has improved things a lot for them in recent years making their jobs safer and easier. Sex workers face so much violence because society tells men that they deserve it. That they are criminals and wh*res and men can take out their anger on them.

Pornography also taught me about my sexuality in a way that society failed to. It taught me that my desires were normal. That there were people like me and they weren't just the punchlines of jokes on TV. Pornography did good in my life and I'm not ashamed of that.

Please show some compassion and remove "Pornography" from your list. If you have specific objections, list those instead.

For all the people casually checking out the licence a short summary would be quite helpful including a basic list of the licence's rules.

Despite discussions in #41 #30 and #13 Nuclear Energy is still listed as prohibited with no caveats.

I can understand the nuclear energy is not perfect: management of nuclear waste, supply chain dependance, and other potential dangers surrounding mismanagement. Just because it is powerful does not make it inherently evil. Realistically, our approaches to nuclear waste are still extremely naive and have much room to grow in efficiency, re-use of waste, safety (passive reactors) - this research should be supported!

The way this is written would currently exclude the following institutions from using software published with the license...

• Research Laboratories (ex: UC: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory)
• Space Companies (NASA, SpaceX, and more)
• And much more.....

Resolution
The "nuclear energy" clause should be changed to "Weapons of Mass Destruction" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction -- Which would also include chemical and biological warfare, which was not previously mentioned at all.

Overview

As a member of the Raisely organisation (and someone who's interested in potentially implementing this licence for various technologies), I have a implementation question and concern regarding the enforceability and scope of this licence.

I have come up with the following scenario to demonstrate the issue⋆

1. Creator (A) creates library (X) under the NoHarm licence
2. (A) sells redistributable SaaS (Y) that heavily relies on (X) library to AnonCorp (B)
3. AnonCorp anonymously sells (or provides an obfuscated copy of) a new product (Z) that is built on (A) and (X), but is using a commercial license that is not aware of the underlying composite libraries.
4. Nefarious Incorporated (C) uses Saas (or equivalent) (Z) to do something that violates the NoHarm license.

⋆ All aforementioned names (with the exception of NoHarm) are hypothetical bodies, and not direct representation of specific companies, organisations, or individuals.

Question:

In what way can Creator (A), once aware of the actions made by the irresponsible user (C), take legal action against (C) due to abuse of the underlying software licencing?

Proposed Resolution

We need some sort of documentation outlining possible solutions that enable software creators who distribute their source products under NoHarm to enforce and raise awareness of the ethical boundaries their software has, potentially if that means requiring developers to integrate NoHarm into their Terms of Service Documentation.

Overview

Clarify war crimes. War crimes is actually poorly defined. May need to reference an international convention.

Proposed Resolution

Find a specific definition of war crimes that can be referenced

Overview

I think this is implicitly covered by UDHR, but might be worth explicitly mentioning in explicitly in the README as it's a concept that most, especially in the tech world, would be on board with.

Proposed Resolution

Double check coverage of mass surveilance and state censorship
Add explicit mention of prohibiting use in mass surveilance or state censorship in the README