"Ethical" Software Threatens Free And Open Source Software

[@crotacheese2424]

FOSS For Life

[@wasted5742]

Life for FOSS

[@tokiomutex4148]

For life FOSS

[@oneanime5551]

life is FOSS

[@tokiomutex4148]

@@oneanime5551 life is suffering

[@wasted5742]

@@tokiomutex4148 why am I here? Just to suffer.

[@milojarow]

I subscribed to fix my arch I ended up fixing myself

[@brielov]

These days, my only motivation to become a better developer every day is knowing the world is going to shit. At some point, I'll have to code my own every day apps and services.

[@pleaseyourselfsir]

@Gabriel Vaquer .... Amen to that , I’m already trying to panic store what I have left Compatible with Windows 7 lol !😧😵

Unfortunately you also very quickly discover that you use too many programs, and cannot possibly create your own perfect version of it all. And that's exactly where FOSS comes in, and why it's worth protecting.

[@pleaseyourselfsir]

@Steen Schütt .... Agreed ! ❤️🤝

[@minepro1206]

Good luck with that.

[@Henk717]

I wish we one day got the end all be all decentral social media platform. Because its so simple in what needs to be achieved yet so complex to do. If we all had a distrubuted or even P2P network similar to LBRY that also allows feeds with short posts that you can expand into long posts. Combined with a grid page for media content like LBRY already has. But as difficult to censor as the gnutella network with adblock filterlist style white and blacklists that also allows encrypted messaging, video/audio chats, boards/groups/channels and livestreaming you would have won the internet. Literally everything for this already exists, but often in suboptimal forms, and definitely not in a tightly integrated package. Once this mother of all social media apps existed and people used it it would be game over for big tech.

[@driden1987]

“Ethical” as if they were morally superior to other software devs.

[@frykauf]

Lol good point, what an assholish think to say. They could have just as well called it „Superior“ software.

[@darthvader5300]

Free Open Source means "NO FAVORITISM BASED ON IDEOLOGIES OR POLITICS" and ILLEGALLY IMPOSED ILLEGAL favoritism which is the evil agenda of the leftists nutcases!

[@AugustusBohn0]

free software can be run by anyone for any purpose; anything that singles out a person or group from access to those freedoms seems like a glaringly obvious downgrade to me. no software user is illegal! ;p

[@elmegagamer1]

I mean if i had made a facial recognition software i wouldn't want china using it freely (you know, because human rights)

[@ajddavid452]

yes exactly, doesn't matter if the user is a worker or a cyber criminal, free means ANYBODY can use it

[@killermonkey1392]

@@elmegagamer1 And you really think China would care at all about your license?

[@RussellNelson]

Exactly why it will never be open source software.

[@frykauf]

Then we start getting into who decides the rules and then we lose the whole point of free (as in freedom) & open source software. It takes 5 seconds to reach that conclusion. So these people definitely are malicious. They think that whatever reasons they have are more important than companies/countires having influence over all software and setting all the rules.

[@elclippo4182]

My software is vegan and organic

[@mjdxp5688]

I only approve of software without GMOs or artificial preservatives in it that was made without harm to any developer.

[@camerontgore]

Something something CrossFit...

[@blublubblub]

What next? An "attack helicopter" software joke? What happened to respecting private property rights? Don't like a certain Ethical Software License? Make your own program bub...

[@OGBhyve]

@@mjdxp5688 "without harm to any developer." Well...that rules out most software. lol

[@masamune5710]

@@blublubblub that would be an argument if you weren’t supportive of deplatforming people wherever they are. What do you want, for everyone of a political persuasion to make their own infrastructure from the ground up? Then take your own advice lol

[@tireseas]

Yeah, this trend is making me empathize with the hardcore BSD license folks from back in the day a lot better. It's not going to change my choices of tools, but it definitely may affect who I materially support.

[@reesericdotci]

It's an off-brand SJW license.

[@frykauf]

And then we get countries forcing their version of „ethical" label on software developers. Who doesn’t comply is branded as platform of hate speech/platform for terrorists/malicious/etc. Seriously can’t they think for a second how this stuff always snowballs?

[@alphago9397]

.. if they don't want certain people using their code, they can just keep their source code to themselves....??

[@elmegagamer1]

They can, but they don't want? I mean it's better than propietary software

[@ErnestoSun]

Any creator can choose how much to give away from her/his natural right on her/his work.

[@_antoniocouto]

"Ethical software"... Like a license is going to stop some dictator from using their software. They could also build ethical guns.

[@disconinja]

Breaking a license can (in theory) lead to legal consequences for unethical companies re-using the code under wrong conditions if it is discovered. It's unlikely to stop military, but it still can stop some of the technology stakeholders they rely on.

[@Dragonopolis]

Guns are ethical tools ..... It is some Humans in society who use these tools unethical. In other words..... People can be unethical... not the Gun

[@_antoniocouto]

@@Dragonopolis Just like software.

[@Dragonopolis]

@@interru_io If you look throughout human history anything and I mean anything will be used to kill... Humans been killing things long before guns were around. To put all of human history to blame on guns is irresponsible and removing guns won't solve the killing problems in human society. Humans even turned the tools God gave us (hand,feet, human body)into lethal killing machines. Even nature has learned over generations to avoid humans because use of tools to kill is more powerful than natures predators and definitely helps level the playing field when it comes to predatory behavior vs nature. It wouldn't take long for natures predators to take notice if we remove tools from humans. Human beings stand much lower on the food chain without our tools. Killing never will stop because killing is part of nature. Kill or be killed is natures law and doesn't change for man or God because lack of tools. Its just sad that we humans choose to kill our own kind instead of using them for the benefit of mankind. By your interpretation because software is causing a huge problem in society right now between that hacking and fake news that we should just eliminate software all together.... wrong software is not the issue.... just like guns are not the issue, just like books are not the issue, etc....

[@meatwise]

Another possibility is that the "ethical software" crowd aren't looking to change people they disagree with, but instead dis-empower and isolate them by denying them access to modern tools.

[@peterfritzsebastianullmann8665]

Depending on whom we are talking about, this would certainly a lgitimate goal. It does matter who does what; I do not get why we all agree that crime is bad, but once it is committed using free and open source software, crime becomes an expression of freedom that we have to defend to the death. I myself am never going to defend the indefensible.

[@vlmath314]

yes, but the issue is the as follow: who decide who is not a good person? firstly, not the one judged. second, how would you react if someone you disagree with say that you are the bad one and can not use this software? those type of desicions are subjective and depending upon a lot of factor that are, in my sense, not sain to include in a software license.

[@DennisChaves]

That's exactly what they are doing. I think DT was just trying to be charitable to the people he disagrees with.

[@thrackerzod6097]

That won't work at all though. People will still use the software for what purposes they want. As they always have, a good example of this is piracy and how despite the crackdowns and laws, piracy has not been stopped and is still going strong.

[@jk-mm5to]

It should be called "Equitable" software.

[@scorch855]

Controversial opinion time: Ethical software license is to GPL, what GPL is to MIT license/BSD licenses. Just because I believe all software should be free and open source doesn't mean I have the right to force others to do the same to gain the privilege of using software I develop. It should not be up to decide me how other people can use and distribute software I released into the public domain. Freedom to use the software within the terms I have specified is not complete freedom even if it benefits free software in the long run. Ethical software is sacrificing freedoms "for the greater good" in the same way, just to a greater extent.

[@2012knp]

It’s not controversial, it’s just bad. GPL is a software-centric license and its main goal is to help free software to continuously improve. The main goal of ethical license is to enforce your political beliefs on other people.

[@scorch855]

@@2012knp the free software movement is a social and political campaign (before you say it's not political both gnu.org and fsf.org directly state on their websites that its both social and political). It just happens to be the one which I agree with. I do not agree with trying to force that belief on other people, the most I will do is attempt to educate them on why I believe it benefits everyone. Don't get me wrong, I love GPL software and I use it a lot. But I would be lying if I said I don't find it incredibly irritating when I have to re-implement a piece of GPL software from scratch if I need to bundle it with something else I have developed in order to retain the license I use on my software because it allows the most freedom. It's a huge waste of time and resources for the sake of strong-arming people into adhering to your personal belief system. Copyleft licenses legally compel developers who modify or extend free software to comply with the belief system of the original author. This removes their autonomy to determine how THEIR contributions should be distributed. Maybe you, along with millions others don't have an issues with that. But I don't think that is my decision to make.

[@2012knp]

@@scorch855 three things. a). Free Software is an ideology and a political movement. Open Source Software is not. Free Software is a subset of OSS that is more radicalized, but it can still be used as OSS. b). There are different types of politics. Relationship between individuals and big companies is not the same as the relationship between left and right. GPL and it’s alternatives reside strictly in the first camp, empower users and prevent abuse from corporations, though there are caveats (like the one you’ve mentioned). Ethical licenses, however, permit you to segregate users however you want. Kind-a reminds me of the 5th edition of Vampire The Masquerade, which has a passage that tells you to reevaluate your life choices, instead of playing the game if you are a “radically to the right”. c). You can license your stuff however you want. It’s not offensive in original projects, you may just not use them. People take issue with activists trying to substitute OSS with ethical software. Sorry if I sounded offensive or condescending.

[@scorch855]

@@2012knp @Егор Феклисов I understand where you are coming from. I do not support the idea of these "ethical licenses" either. I was simply stating that I believe many of the contentions which are expressed here can also be applied to copyleft licenses in general, just to a far lesser degree. I think the only way the use and distribution of software should be restricted, is restricting someones ability to sue the author. I disagree with the entire principle of intellectual property. An individual should not be able to own or control an idea/process or an encoding of an idea. So while copyleft is definitely an improvement over copyright, it is still limiting what people are allowed to do with the code. In relation to point C, I am explicitly disallowed from using it in a project which uses a less restrictive license. In these cases my only option are to place additional restrictions on my code (which violates my belief that maximizing freedom as much as possible is important), find an alternative which is not GPL, or redo a bunch of work because the original author tried to force other people to do the right thing if they want the privilege of using it. I think this is a waste of development resources, which is the most valuable asset we have in the free software community. GPL not only defines a line at which something is not free enough, it also defines a line where something provides too much freedom. This is why I do not personally use the GPL license.

[@Subzearo]

@@2012knp How is a free licence that is used to prevent it being used unethically for closed sourced projects that mistreats users any different from a free license that is used to prevent the software being used unethically to harm other people?

[@charlessmith5465]

Whose ethics? California corporate ethics? US Congress ethics? Chinese government ethics? Islamic ethics?

[@charlessmith5465]

@@thecashewtrader3328 even then, is interacting with a stock market "gambling"? Many people might think so. Are games with loot-crates gambling? Who's to say, and for that matter, who would be in charge of verifying such things?

[@mjdxp5688]

Racist ethics? Political extremist ethics? Bigot ethics?

[@charlessmith5465]

@@mjdxp5688 occult ethics 👾

[@miroboru2659]

This rant was inane and not worthy of a 14-year old. If anyone want slap an «Ethical Software» license on their code, go ahead. That is no-ones business but their own. If it starts to infect major projects I am sure there is enough people who feel differently to fork a version without the offending license.

[@justinbailey3071]

You are correct that nobody should try to change another person. I often find that if I am doing the right thing I can change others by being my best self. Ethical software does not seem like a good idea because as you mentioned it does not teach good behaviors, it teaches people to despise each other.

[@peterye1666]

This entire video contradicts itself. 3:33 "it is a serious character flaw and if you are one of these types of people you need to fix that very fast" In that sentence, Derek is telling his viewers that they "*need* to fix that." He is literally trying to change his viewers in a video about how you shouldn't try to change another person.

[@yotam706]

Man you're KILLING IT with those latest real talk videos I love them so much KEEP IT UP!

[@Inlanning]

I hope he's not killing I T.

[@Eddthompson]

Closed source is unethical Open source is ethical

[@legalize.brokkoli]

open source is not the same as free software

[@humm535]

@@legalize.brokkoli In practice, pretty much all Free software is Open Source and vice versa.

[@skaruts]

@@legalize.brokkoli but it's still ethical

[@humm535]

Non-Open Source software need not be unethical. It is not unethical to just not release software.

[@legalize.brokkoli]

@@skaruts To be perfectly honest, i consider the discussion and the term as just plain stupid.

[@bobgrimes8618]

Taking a break from Linux in order to get an original IBM desktop, IBM M-Type keyboard and IBM Monitor to run OS/2 Warp, a real 1994 retro machine.

[@blyaticon8190]

Ms are the best keyboards imo (after Fs)

[@bobgrimes8618]

@Peter Andrijeczko Because I am tired of messing with Linux and want to do retro computing. Did you not read that?

[@sfuoncall]

Ooh!! I loved OS/2 Warp.

[@Henk717]

DT i can't help but feel spoken to in this one. Not because i am a supporter of unethical software like what Firefox is starting to become but because i like to help others and make the world better by offering up solutions using various means hoping one way or another they land and fix some of the deeper issues in the world. And have been guiding my peers on how to get better themselves. So immediately according to your argument that would mean i am to lazy to fix myself so i tell others they should do it instead or worse change themselves to benefit me. This perspective is of course wrong, you have met me in voice chats before so you know i tend to be a happy uplifting guy who loves to share his passions. Am i flawed? Of course, i got the burnout years ago and was so deep in it that it is a lengthy process. Its been taking ages to heal and likely will take a long time but that does not mean i am not working hard to heal myself. But, given my burnout was such an extreme case and the experts i was paired with don't seem to fully understand burnouts and in some cases not understanding them at all. I was forced to develop my own methodology to heal. So i could A, use it to heal myself. B, be lazy and only use it on others or C use it on both myself and others. In your video you make it seem that helping others automatically puts me in category B under the sense that if my methodology would be so great and if i was truly motivated i'd be healed. But the reality is that most of the people i helped aren't nearly as deep in so the results are easier to achieve for them than for me. And those who are as deep in as me while recovering as slow as me noticed improvements. Same with others coming to me for help on their issues. I don't force anyone to change, but i do develop and offer tools for them to change. I very much want to contribute to a world where people can be themselves, have a say over their lives, have much better education, have fair governments or don't have to waste their entire youth on education that then makes them skilled enough for an entry level job. So while i know this video was probably not directed at me, but at sour bitter SJW types i still wanted to show you that people like me who genuinely want to share their knowledge and insight for free for the betterment of the world exist. Not out of mallice, but out of a desire to contribute to a healthy future. Not by forcing people to life how i think they should or by applying restrictions. But by spreading knowledge that encourages liberty and lifting people up after they had a bad experience. So don't be so grim about those trying to change the world. Not all are the typical radical activist types.

[@minnerlas1730]

I think he was mostly talking about people who advocate "ethical" software

[@Henk717]

@@minnerlas1730 He certainly was. But his argument was so broad he also includes those trying to counter that movement. So i wrote it as an eye opener that not everyone who tries to better the world is bad.

[@minnerlas1730]

@@Henk717 I agree that not everyone who's trying to change the world is bad. It just depends on the method they use

[@atemoc]

Software that's lightweight, fast, that had readable, understandable and easily modifiable code, that has a good user experience, good documentation, that is free and open source, etc is good software for me I don't give a sh!t about anything else Give me good code, I'll be happy Start to throw me sh!t that has nothing to do with that, I'll throw it back to your face and stop wasting time with you

[@n_x1891]

Based

[@blublubblub]

How about code that says you can't distribute binaries without distributing source code? (Ehem, GPL, Linux for example, hello?). It's not that cut and dry. You can't separate ethics from licensing, everything is an Ethical choice...

[@add1989]

@@blublubblub I don't understand... What are you trying to say? If you distributed binaries without source then it wouldn't be open source 🤣

[@crism8868]

"maybe it could be nice if my software wasn't used to violate human rights" Distrotube: "why don't you start by changing yourself?"

[@noahgeller8513]

Right?? Tech ethics is a major concern and i really don’t understand his argument here

[@NugentFan]

Human rights from the point of view of a leftist or from the point of view of a rightist? According to a leftist, a mother has the right to kill her own unborn child, and this is not a violation of human rights, and whoever supports abortion has contributed to the progress of the world! And from the point of view of a right-winger, one can classify human beings on the basis of nationality and race and have more rights because they are indigenous. The question is, what do political issues that have been debated for thousands of years have to do with science and programming? Who wants GNOME and Firefox to make the world a better place? Their job should be to build the program, not to help Biden's appointment. A communist who will help the Islamic Republic to suppress the Iranian people

[@noahgeller8513]

@@NugentFan some things go beyond left vs right. It seems totally reasonable, for instance, for the developer of some open source computer vision software to not want it being used in drone strikes, or for government surveillance.

[@purpleshell9989]

​@@NugentFan why are those the only two points of view on human rights?

[@NugentFan]

@Datguy Exactly

[@NicholasHenkey]

"Ethical software" sounds like a Mussolini idea

[@LeoToccaGames]

Absolutely not.

[@blublubblub]

@Nicholas Henkey Yeah, like "Ethical Science" Oh wait... (Sarcasm)

[@cannabidivarin]

yeah bro im sure mussolini cared about any ethicality at all bro

[@NicholasHenkey]

@@cannabidivarin I attempted to share a link with Leo but it was held for review. Mussolini loved to use the Italian word "ethical" in his writings

[@LeoToccaGames]

@@NicholasHenkey maybe that thing used ethic as a noun more than an adjective. My "absolutely not" response was in that sense, since in the 20s-30s there was an incredible use of rhetoric.

[@guilherme5094]

Ethical software ?! Lol! And then? Ethical hammer? Ethical screwdriver? Software is software.

[@blyaticon8190]

Ethical bombings in Iraq? Sure thing dude!

[@8w73]

@@blyaticon8190 Democrats will find it lovely ethical and inclusive.

[@glorfification]

Sounds like the "critical race theory" maniacs again, right down to the Orwellian doublespeak title.

[@DevDungeon]

You are like Richard Stallman but without all the RMS ;) Richard Stallman is one of few people who are so vocal about the freedom of software, but he is just too eccentric for most people to handle. You are a beacon of light for freedom software. Freedom software is what I call free software to disambiguate.

[@jumpman1823]

Who's part of the ethical software movement? Names? Companies? Non Profit? Linux Distros? Software? What bad have they done lately? Legislation? Really want to know who these "messed up" people are so I can avoid them.

[@antagonizingusername]

seconding, we need a nice big "beware list" of organizations that are shady.

[@neoplumes]

Based on what I'm hearing, it's sounding like I'm one of the people you should avoid. But I haven't heard of this before, so I'll have to do more research and let you know.

[@jumpman1823]

@@neoplumes Yeah that's where I was getting at. This is all made up. I think he's sour that he got kicked out of mastodon.technology for lying about Mozilla. Wish he would stick to making tech vids.

[@Siskiyous6]

Thank you for bringing this up. Liberty and Freedom require tolerance! You nailed this!

[@jwmcq]

This is a great conclusion about 'ethical software' but, overall, such a bad take. Richard Stallman was literally trying to change the world when he took the free software culture of academia at the time, codified it, and popularised it - and he did! Now you're saying he should have concentrated on himself instead? Got a haircut after a few sets of deadlifts? As if they're mutually exclusive? Yeah, 'ethical software' is ridiculous, but you're doing yourself no favours with this 'clean your room' nonsense.

[@alrightsquinky7798]

Derek, I love your content, I love your channel, but what your argument about people needing to focus on themselves instead of others is self-refuting by definition. We can test whether an argument is self-refuting by taking it through three tests. First, the argument puts forth a condition that must be passed in order for something to be true. Second, the argument subjects itself to that condition. And third, the argument fails that condition. Let’s look at what you mention in this video. You say “Don’t try to change other people. If you’re the kind of person who’s out there trying to change hearts and minds, your character is flawed, and you need to change yourself.” We see the condition: you argue that people must not focus on others, but rather, themselves when it comes to change. Now, what about this video? You’re addressing your rather large audience and attempting to teach us a moral lesson. You even preface your moral with, “Real talk here,” to prime us for your lesson in ethics. Do you see how your argument refutes itself? You’re addressing people specifically who believe in changing the world by changing people’s minds, and attempting to change their minds by telling them it’s wrong to change people’s minds. Your argument fails its own test because it attempts the very thing it says we should never do. If you truly believed in living by the standard you put forth, you wouldn’t even consider making a video such as this. Now here’s the thing: I believe completely that we ought to be making the world a better place. I don’t believe we should force anybody to believe anything, that’s abhorrent, but what point do ethics serve if they cannot call us to action? They’re rather weak ethics at that point. If we could not codify and enforce a code of morals, culture simply wouldn’t exist. I’m a Christian, and I have two Buddhist coworkers. We talk all the time about morality, spirituality, and the nature of truth. Our beliefs differ, but we care enough about each other to want the best for one another, even if that means having difficult but respectful conversations. They believe that self-actualization comes through meditation and adhering to certain set of morals, and I believe that we live in a state of spiritual and moral death until we know Christ. I fully support your ability to make videos like this, and I really do love your content. I learn a lot from you every week. I’m simply saying that there’s more to life than ourselves. If we love our brothers and sisters around us, we would try to reach out to them.

[@peterye1666]

Exactly. I think the problem here is that Derek only cares about the free software movement and disregards other morals/ethics. He doesn't have a clear picture of what is right or wrong, except when it comes to software. This is why his arguments are full of holes and flaws when he talks about moral issues unrelated to software (e.g. "Don't try to change other people")

[@jacquesmimounet5587]

"too many people trying to change the world, trying to change others, it is a serious character flaw . And if you are one of these types of people, **you need to fix that**" The irony

[@vimlatexesp]

To some people in the Open Source community, the Free Software's ethical adresses are nothing less than an obstacle for its purposes. Yes, both kind of licenses has the posibility to modify or change the code, but for different purposes. Seeing people treating both Open Source and Free software as a big community and in the same time being frustrated for "ethical" limitations to me is ridiculous. It's like assuming that people doesn't have the right to chose their own path. If you feel happy in the open source and/or in the free software community, no one have the power to make you change your decision. Your principal complain is about how "they are trying to change everyone" but your speech in this channel is trying to convince people to change from propietary software to "free" software (FOSS). I don't know, I feel like something is not matching to me.

[@elmegagamer1]

I think this is the classic "SJW are invading this space that was MINE and THEY are taking away MY rights to do anything because they have rules that I don't like so THEY are doing a bad thing"

[@elmegagamer1]

And all while talking about freedom

[@testacals]

@@elmegagamer1 Restrictive licenses are restrictive. He isn't wrong in that scenario.

[@Subzearo]

"NOOOOOOOOOO! YOU CANT JUST POINT OUT SOCIETAL PROBLEMS! YOU HAVE TO KEEP WORKING! JUST WORK HARDER AND YOU'LL BE HAPPY!"

[@masamune5710]

Haha self development go brrr

[@ktraglin]

I really don't understand why you think "they're going to destroy the free software movement". At this point in time, that just seems impossible.

[@burner00019]

This may be your most important video yet. This really needed to be said. Look what they did to the linux CoC. Your content keeps getting better and better, keep it up!

[@blublubblub]

The CoC is not the license. You're free to fork Linux and make your own kernel project where you call lgbtq people the f word (I don't think you'll have much success there buddy), but not distribute binaries without distributing source code 'cause it goes against the GPL license/ethics of Free Software/Copyleft (oops there's that word again, ethics). Well wattayaknow, turns out ethics has always been a part of FOSS, as if all legal decisions involved ethical choices (sarcasm, EVERYTHING involves ethics, even ignoring ethics).

[@thrackerzod6097]

@@blublubblub Even then, it looks like its up to individual maintainers to enforce the CoC, so even with the CoC in place there's still a lot of wiggle room, just depends on the maintainer you're dealing with.

[@blublubblub]

Off topic, I gotta dial down the sarcasm... No need to be so aggresive in my comments. I'm not gonna convince the original poster of anything by being a dick... Sorry about that OP, didn't mean to antagonize as much 😊

[@sophietheopossum]

I'm... confused? not a single person has been talking about ethical software until just now when you uploaded this video? you might have let someone take you down some really weird rabbit-hole full of made-up issues

[@ddqd123]

It's a real thing: ethicalsource.dev/licenses/ - But I haven't heard of any cases where open source projects are getting haranged into relicensing. What I do see though are bait-and-switch licenses from BSD-style to more restrictive ones that have nothing to do with ethics and everything to do with a company like Amazon forking and monetizing code without contributing back.

[@sophietheopossum]

@@ddqd123 yeah I think i remember Apple doing those switches a lot. I might have seen some pull requests about that? Feels a bit like an EULA with extra steps, it's pretty hard to ban people from 100% source-available software

[@Subzearo]

I agree. Richard Stallman should have worked on losing weight and going to the gym before trying to change the world with the free software movement.

[@simtastic4356]

This is pretty ironic considering the fact that the free and open source community routinely tries to change what software others use lol

[@alvarojneto]

By making better foss, so no irony here

[@RussellNelson]

Only by offering something better. If it's not better, than stay with your proprietary software.

[@MySqueezingArm]

DT, I appreciate your input and agree with you for the most part, I just disagree on some nuances behind your points. Should people handle their own self improvement before judging others? Absolutely. Should we ignore moral dillemas in the world? No, even if you've done something bad yourself. Should we force our standards upon other people? No. Should we expect everyone to change for our well being? No. Is it wrong to ask others to be considerate when in discussions/shared forums? No. I think the problem with these SJW / Ethical Software types is that instead of trying to be reasonable, they attack everyone. This leads to resistance, even from people that fundamentally may agree with them. I'm all for ending racism. I don't think master/slave terminology is inherently racist. It just makes sense in the context of the program. Idk. Not throwing stones just my two cents.

[@angelusdarkmost9153]

They want to protect big corporations from independent competition

[@RussellNelson]

That's not what they want, but it's what they'll get.

[@sushislurpee3273]

So... basically any evangelical Christian is a "damaged broken person" for trying to change the world around them???

[@minnerlas1730]

People who are advocating for "ethical" software are far from Evangelical Christians

[@ddqd123]

I really see no issue with the Ethical Software licensing movement. The most famous one The 996.ICU License prevents companies in China and around the globe from exploiting their workforce by forcing them to work a grueling 9-9-6 schedule (9am to 9pm 6 days a week). This is extremely common in China, but it's spreading. Ultimately, the open source developers who put in the time to build software have, at their discretion the ability to choose whatever software license they deem appropriate. Personally, I favor (A)GPL3 for large projects but I tend to use MIT for smaller, simpler projects. I understand many viewers of DistroTube may admire people like Jack Ma or Xi Jinping, but please put your self in the shoes of a Chinese worker.

[@unspecifiedx2096]

Anybody who supports free and open software does not support or admire communists like Xi jingping

[@blublubblub]

@@unspecifiedx2096 hahaha you think he's communist... He's the Chinese Trump, only more competent

[@blublubblub]

Furthermore, this video is nonsense. Free Software imposes behavior on people, for the benefit of the users. It's the whole point, using copyright law against itself.

[@AutumnWind92]

@@unspecifiedx2096 XI Jinping is the opposite of communism. Don't use that word when you don't know what it means.

[@unspecifiedx2096]

@@AutumnWind92 An excerpt from wikipedia: "Xi Jinping[note 2] (/ˌʃiː dʒɪnˈpɪŋ/ SHEE jin-PING; Chinese: 习近平; born 15 June 1953) is a Chinese politician who has served as General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and Chairman of the Central Military Commission (CMC) since 2012, and President of the People's Republic of China (PRC) since 2013. Xi has been the paramount leader of China, the most prominent political leader in China, since 2012."

[@SkyyySi]

I think the main thing these people need to understand is that all the people they want to exclude that do "bad" things with open source software are human beings. Paid developers who probably have a family to feed or at least have their own live to pay for. People like the ones from the ethical software movement always luke to make these people seem like machines, as if the companies weren't made up of humans.

[@SenthilBabuji]

Ethical software is stupid. If anyone does anything illegal with or without the help of software, they should be punished. If someone makes a statement saying that 'you cannot use this software for doing x because I think x is bad', then your software is not open. I will not contribute a single line to such source for free. Because that software is not free.

[@elmegagamer1]

there's no FOSS emulatorst then? I mean every single one tells you not to use it for piracy

[@SenthilBabuji]

@@elmegagamer1 no, they don't say that. They only say that they are not liable if you use it for piracy.

[@sandrosandro6430]

These 'ethical' companies really afraid of proprietary systems (llike CCP) or religions. 'Proprietary' here means 'owned' and/or controlled by a few and others have little say on it.

[@devonmorris1992]

DT are you a run dmc fan?

[@cosenocsibb8144]

This is one of the very few videos on KZbin I pressed the like button. Derek, brother, thank you for sharing your thoughts and just being a person with common sense.

[@stephenreaves3205]

Love the RUN GCC shirt. Got one myself from the FSF

[@j.christ8786]

While I agree with the premise of your argument that people involved in FOSS shouldn't be dictating the political and social implications of their software, the reasoning you put forth to support this position is just off-base. It looks like you're saying that activism is a serious personal flaw and that activists need to learn how to work on themselves... But didn't you admit in your Firefox video that you have been paying little to no attention to politics or current events for quite some time? You're bashing the idea of people trying to tackle issues in the society in which they live without acknowledging or maybe even being aware of what those issues are. Have you considered the possibility that some of these issues could potentially impede the ability for these people, or those that they act on behalf of, to improve their circumstances, as you suggest they should do? Just because you aren't affected by a certain issue doesn't mean that the issue doesn't affect others, and quite frankly this rant makes you come off as rather sheltered. Also, as many have already mentioned, this video and advocacy of is really another form of the activism that you seem to have so much disdain for. Again, I agree that FOSS should not be a platform for people to use to force their beliefs on others, but activism is not inherently negative, despite the way that certain groups of people go about it. I personally feel that it is a good thing that women can vote, that 16-hour work days are no longer normal, that schools are integrated, and that US citizens are not subject to being drafted, and we have activism to thank for all these things. I, for one, am glad that those people didn't decide to go to the gym instead of fighting for those causes (and by the way, I actually do generally enjoy going to the gym and so do many others). I normally really enjoy your content and I don't necessarily believe that your intention was to generalize your statements so broadly, but I just take issue with a lot of what was said in this video

[@Nikifuj908]

Listen, Jesus Christ. No one is against activism. The problem is, FOSS advocates are already activists for a conflicting cause. FOSS advocates believe that users should be able to use and modify software *for any purpose.* The "ethical software" crowd may be advancing good causes. I am also opposed to racism and violence. But when you advance your position by trying to control users, not only is it wrong; it also becomes the *opposite* of what FOSS is supposed to represent. A movement about user freedom shouldn't be trying to restrict its users this way.

[@Nikifuj908]

As for your statement that DT isn't empathizing enough: why should these people expect empathy? They didn't try very hard to understand ESR before they kicked him from the Open Source Initiative. You lose the right to patience and understanding when you enter the conversation guns blazing.

[@LarryGaringfrog]

Ethical is just a short version of saying I'm a Narcissist who thinks everyone should think like "I" do

[@cuttlefishn.w.2705]

I thought the mindset would be more of this: "I'm fat and lazy, and I don't wanna do any of the work required to get healthy. I will preach to everyone I can that healthiness is an unrealistic body standard and shame everyone who doesn't agree and/or doesn't match my waistline. Chubs unite!" Alternatively: "I'm fat, lazy, and love junk food, but 80% of everyone I see enjoys the same food that I do. I will petition for a regulation on everyone's food, promoting dieting and other boring eating, even though it's more my problem than anyone else's. If I have to suffer, so does everyone else!"

[@NoobBasically]

Imagine your software needing diversity points

[@ethanl9656]

Doesn't make sense. When the window of what's "ethical" changes, you suddenly have whole products or APIs etc. That have to be rewritten because it doesn't fit the definition of ethical. Who would invest their time into that?

[@nachsterhalt3430]

"Dont try changing other people" - Literally rants 11:00 minutes about how other people should "fix themselves". Sorry I really tried to not get toxic but I couldnt hold back... ;D

[@SusanAmberBruce]

I got a question that's been bugging me for ages and I hope you can answer it for me, So is there a Linux distro where one can tell the installer what hardware they are using and it installs a distro tailored to that specific system, for example, I am using Linux Mint 20 Cinnamon at the moment and it downloads updates for hardware I ain't got and for software packages that I don't use. How can I get a distro that is more specific to my hardware and software? thanks for all the great videos keep um coming. Free comes before Ethical if ethical changes free then it's not ethical by definition. Q.E.D. I am not trying to change the world per se but I am trying to show a better world that a lot of people just can't see because of oppression and minimalization. Ethical is not a dirty word but it is a word that for the most part, the world is ignorant of its real meaning, hence there is a lot of miss-use. of the word and it's gotten to be used in the wrong context. We are on the dawn of Ethical and I hope and pray that the young one's coming up will grasp the real deal with ethical because the world at large does not yet understand ethical. that's me and my rant over thanks.

[@AK474000]

This top-down desire to sanitize everything negative is crazy. It's like watching "Fahrenheit 451" come to life.

[@OGBhyve]

Great video DT. Could you give examples of ethical software licenses?

[@ChristopherGibbsBKK]

How can this be a "great video", if after 11 mins of hypercritical whining about how everyone else is wrong and should change, you don't even know the contents of an ethical license? This is an overly emotional, completely biased video that doesn't even address the issue in the most cursory possible way.

[@teslainvestah5003]

​@@ChristopherGibbsBKK This video didn't dissect an ethical source license, but videos on "what is open source" don't dissect a license either. They analyze philosophies and why movements exist. Ethical source exists to exclude people and discriminate.

[@anonsyomuem1607]

how to type special ascii/UNICODE charectors on linux with standard keyboard. like windows have [alt] + charector number ---[with num locked]

[@unclesheo1243]

Ctrl+Shit+U and then type the hex code and enter, e.g. 262F for ☯ And since ASCII is a subset of Unicode, you can enter e.g. 40 to get '@' Alternatively: cheatography.com/davechild/cheat-sheets/ubuntu-compose-key-combinations/

[@Subzearo]

So you don't support movements that oppose mass surveillance?

[@ntrrg]

I think it is a little extremist, probably the guys from privative software have strong opinions about FOSS too, "look at this stupids working for free for us", I agree it is hard and time consuming to change other people, but that doesn't mean it is fine to call them broken people. Be respectful, it is the only thing humanity needs to fix all its problems

[@beaukurjata1873]

I understand it doesn't fit but the whole thing has this "rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic" vibe to me. Like, the Arch community might be harsh but that manual they keep referring me to is an absolute goldmine of information :) Thank you for your input on this topic, DT. It is appreciated.

[@DJ_Cthulhu]

So which is the most 'ethical' editor, Emacs, or Vim ;-)

[@molnaredmond]

ed !

[@Hexalyse]

*spends the entire video saying that criticizing others or wanting things to change and trying to make people change is bad* *has an entire channel revolving around criticizing proprietary software and trying to convince people to use tiling WMs and open source software* I see a weird contradiction, here.

[@peterye1666]

He also contradicts himself in this video. 3:33 "it is a serious character flaw and if you are one of these types of people YOU NEED TO FIX THAT VERY FAST"

[@derekr54]

The trouble with the world today is that too many people concern themselves with what other people do or say,rather than getting on with their own lives.Everyone is offended by everyone who does not conform with their beliefs.We are all individuals and all born equal,we need to live in peace with one another not keep trying to change everyone else. Peace to everyone on this channel,we are all equal and deserve respect.

[@noferblatz]

Big thumbs up. This is what happens when you lets psychos into our community.

[@carlozanotto8307]

Define ethical: discriminating against everyone that doesn't think like us.

[@tokiomutex4148]

Isn't discrimination illegal in most countries?

[@legalize.brokkoli]

@@tokiomutex4148 On paper, maybe.

[@Subzearo]

Define ethical: preventing software from being used to harm other people

[@legalize.brokkoli]

@@Subzearo Define ethical: involving or expressing subjective moral approval or disapproval independent of legitimacy

[@Subzearo]

@@legalize.brokkoli Human mistreatment should not be up for debate or brushed off as being "subjective"

[@Dragonopolis]

Lol.... Love your passion and commitment and you contribute a lot to the community, however...... The title alone is hypocritical.... It sounds a lot like you are trying to "change" a person's view of ethical software movement. So the question remains.... Is it ok to share your vision of free software on but not ok for others to invoke their own vision. There is nothing wrong with any license being created as long as it is not force. Some people feel the need to own something and only they are allowed to make changes to what they own.... That's ok. Some people want the right to distribute something with their ethical views attached.... that's ok Some people feel the need to distribute something and don't care what a person or organization does with it.... and that's ok too.... It is only unethical when a license or ideology is "forced" On a person. I really don't see the threat I'm not forced to use the software... if the license is attached.... I will find an alternative that doesn't have the license. If there isn't an alternative... I don't try to change the belief/philosophy..... if I really can't subscribe to the belief/philosophy then I must learn how to create my own tool that achieves similar results and if I want to share it.... I place it under a license that meets or is closer to ideology I believe ... There is nothing unethical about wanting to believe in ethical behavior... Unless its force upon a person

[@eritert]

Very well said

[@grail9558]

The inquisitor shall see you now...

[@iamtolonly]

I have been thinking about that for a long time how about a free open source license, but with a term that when the code you have used by a company that have more than $ 10 million dollars the should bay a fixed amount of money for the code group or for the free open movement that's how you make money from the big and make like payment prizes for people who make more thing free plans in the cloud 🌥 I have many thoughts but I don't know where to go to tell someone that can make them heard by the right person

[@minnerlas1730]

The problem is that they can just turn to other free software

[@pw1187]

It basically boils down to this God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference

[@stumbling]

People who think like this write fucking terrible code. Thank you for bringing my attention to this handy label to avoid their broken shit.

[@szilardjakab1553]

It's nice to see a little bit of philosophy here. Although I agree with you, let me write my take on this topic. The whole idea of this "let's change the world and everyone" comes from the fact that we identify some problems, which is a good thing in itself. But the problem starts on how are people coping with this: I dunno why, but many people think their voice can be heard only if they are screaming, making violent protests, and trying too hard to make people agree with them. And that's really unhealthy. We need to make civil discussions about these things, stating our opinion, keeping in mind that you might not be entirely right, so you try to listen and understand other people's reaction so you can learn more about the proposed issue. The problem isn't with the fact that some people try to change some things. The problem is they want to achieve it no matter what, and with the wrong tools.

[@sleahy73]

While I agree one can't force others to change, I think you are painting with a very broad brush. I'd even go so far as to say that in your admonition, you are trying to change them in some way. On the movement, I know the way music is created and licensed is very different, it is accepted that the artists can stipulate how their music is used and what it is associated with. Would it not be fair for programmers to have similar rights, even under a FOSS type production? (Though it would probably be impossible to enforce...)

[@hrnekbezucha]

But what is it?

[@Hofer2304]

All software should be ethical. Whether it is closed or open source does not matter. It has to be readable and maintainable. The instructions for the user have to be understandable. It must not waste resources, be they human, technical or natural. It doesn't lie about it function. Just because it is claimed the software is "ethical" does not mean it is ethical. As we are all sinners, our software also contains unethical aspects. We should strive to minimize them. Don't shout "My software is ethical!", just make it as ethical as possible.

[@LHCB6]

Thank you

[@damientyler2704]

hold on.. correct me if im wrong.. just watched this and looked it up and so maybe i have it wrong, but based on what i looked up the ethics they're trying to impose seems like its in favor of basic human rights rather than exclusion of certain individuals. the site i looked at said they dont want their software being used for example in war drones or for facial recognition and invasion of privacy . it doesnt sound like a bad thing at first glance but i only researched it for like 5 min.. i mean if u were the guy who wrote facial recognition software and you could say you dont want your stuff being used by governments to track people or for some "social credit" system would you not want the chance to block its misuse? unless im missing something it sounds like a good thing

[@rickboks3954]

Uhh DT, are you trying to change us by telling us to change ourselves? ;)

[@Arvigeus]

You mix Christianity and Budhism, but otherwise I agree with your point. Ethics, morality, and virtue are defined by how others perceive you, rather than by your own vision of the world.

[@stackspace]

What’s more ethical than consent and freedom?

[@chuckowens2010]

Well said

[@sillydragon8198]

So you seem really reluctant to give examples. Could you name some groups being wrongly discriminated against by these licenses? And I mean actual examples, not just "You know...people...those guys..." Name them.

[@G4BR13L_]

Hey Dt, can u make a video showing what do u use for hosting ? Thx

[@konradzuse4778]

That is.. really, you are so right about the basic idea that free software is like a road, that can be used by a nice guy or by a killer. It is a good thing that there is a road, right? And I'm happy that you speak out. But then there is a lot of unrelated stuff, which is not very well thought over. Just one thing (there are many more). You are NOT in full control of your actions and of your opinions! Advertisement - do I need to say more? Or the 'Zeitgeist'. Do you really think that a Chinese person from the Konfuzius era would think the same thoughts that you think? Would you believe that a 7 year old DT made the same decisions as a 47 years old DT?

[@ShubhamBhushanCC]

The FREE in Free and Open Source Software stands for freedom hence it is by definition ethical. Free as in freedom not free as in free beer.

[@faustoluizandrade]

Agree 100% .. "Ethical Software" is so backwards !!

[@ShaunakHub]

TBH has heard about it but never bothered to care to read before watching this video. Just went to read parts of their license. The big question (for me at least) is who decides what is ethical? Is it a set of self proclaimed decision makers? Let me give you a very simple example - Ask China & USA or India & Pakistan or North & South Korea ... Lets see what you come out with about who is ethical and who is not....

[@SmedleyButler1]

Do ANY "open source" reviewers EVER comment on updates being "clean" anywhere? How can we tell many people have even downloaded a given distro if not vetted it? I can't find ANYTHING about vetting of Open source software beyond checksum etc. I know I'm not saavy but are developers gullible?

[@tn0wl361]

Wait can someone explain to me what the "ethical software" movement is?

[@rodmaureirac8422]

basically software that respect your privacy and other stuff.

The ethical software movement is about making sure that your code cannot be used for evil. Noble goal, but that implies that you are deciding who can use what and for which purpose, inevitably leading to stupid licensing systems and discrimination. A marvelous example of one of their stupid licenses (the non-violent public license or whatever) : " II. You do not use the Work for the purpose of Surveilling or tracking individuals for financial gain. iii. You do not use the Work in an Act of War." Because the NSA and warring nations definitely care about your cute little license.

[@tn0wl361]

@ yeah gonna have to agree with DT on this one. Sounds bad. Free software is free software. Deciding how someone can use software is making it not free.

[@zebilaweed]

@@rodmaureirac8422 not at all.

[@charliediep]

@@tn0wl361 aren't copyleft licenses or licenses in general controlling the behavior of others too? Ethical licenses are no different.

[@lucky_underdog4855]

It's no different than Richard Stallman trying to change everyone to use Free Software.

[@InnerTranquility]

Spot on! "You must be the change you want to see in the world". Many people seem to miss the point of this. YOU and only YOU have to sort out your mind map, your inner swamp if you will. Honesty, and Truth is your guiding light through it all! It's so good that you brought this topic up! You are doing good work here! God bless.

[@SadeeshSenevirathne]

Hey DT, could you please make a 100k sub plaque unboxing?

[@peterye1666]

3:33 "it is a serious character flaw and if you are one of these types of people you need to fix that very fast" You're telling your viewers that they "NEED TO FIX THAT" if they have a particular character trait. Video description: "One of the biggest character flaws that I see in many people is the compulsion that some have to change others. And these types of people are around us." It looks like you are one of those people who have the compulsion to change others ...

[@pazu_513]

Unfathomably based

[@pazu_513]

@@ChristopherGibbsBKK seethe and cope

[@ChristopherGibbsBKK]

@@pazu_513 I love that you say that, but blocked by response. Snowflake.

[@pazu_513]

@@ChristopherGibbsBKK nice feminine passive aggression

[@unspecifiedx2096]

What exactly IS "ethical software"?

[@zebilaweed]

Another new way for the SJW to censor and punish people they don't like.

[@bobgrimes8618]

I miss Kell of Devils in your support list!

[@robtingle7752]

Agreed.

[@dethcx22]

I've built a few small apps in my time, nothing too fancy. I don't give a toot who's using it, as long as it's getting used for its purpose.

[@WarrenPostma]

Here's a funny thought. If you didn't platform and explain the point of view of the person you disagree with you would find that their point of view is vanishingly invisible in the world.