Subject: The fvwm Ethical License

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:28:12 +0100

I have checked in a new license file with ethical license terms to
the development branch.  See below for the contents of this file.
Furthermore, I added this statement to the beginning of the
COPYING file:

  Before using this software, every user is required to read the
  fair use statement in the file ETHICAL_LICENSE that comes with the
  fvwm distribution.

Please tell me your comments, enhancements, critique, etc.  Also,
I ask everyone who ever made any change to the CVS repository or
submitted a patch to support this license and have his or her name
added to the list of subscribers.

------------------------ ETHICAL_LICENSE -------------------------
Legally, fvwm is distributed under the terms of the GNU General
Public License. However, the events following the 9th of
September, 2001 and the multinational war against Iraq that began
in March 2003, made me reconsider the wisdom of choosing this
license.  I can not ignore the fact that my work has a part in
killing people, no matter how small it may be.  After discussing
this with many people, I decided to add the following "ethical"
license.

No user of fvwm is forced to agree to the licensing terms.  But
please keep in mind that fvwm is developed by volunteers in their
free time.  Blatant violation of this license by many people will
not only demotivate me and other volunteers, reducing the quality
of fvwm, but may also end development completely.

Thank you for your attention

Dominik Vogt
(fvwm developer)

        Ethical Use of the Fvwm Window Manager
        --------------------------------------

1. You, as a user of fvwm, are expected to make a donation to a
non-government organization that must fulfil one of the following
conditions:

 * It fights against all forms of war, regardless of the nations
   involved.
 * It engages for human rights world-wide, including the country
   you live in.

The donation can be monetary, human labour, donation in kind or
any other form that helps.  Any amount is accepted as long int
lives up to the spirit of this license.  I suggest a donation to
Amnesty International, but you are free to choose a different
organization.

2. You are expected to not use fvwm during work related to

 * research of weapon technology,
 * manufacturing of weapons,
 * supporting, planning, preparing or executing wars and other
   military actions.

3. If you feel you can not comply to the terms above, you are
   kindly asked to choose a different one of the many available
   window managers.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Bye

Dominik ^_^  ^_^

 --
Dominik Vogt, [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked]

---

From: "Paul Smith" <[email-masked]>
Date: 28 Mar 2003 17:44:11 -0500

%% [email-masked] writes:

  dv> Legally, fvwm is distributed under the terms of the GNU General
  dv> Public License. However, the events following the 9th of
  dv> September, 2001

I assume you mean 11 Sep 2001.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Paul D. Smith <[email-masked]>   HASMAT--HA Software Mthds & Tools
 "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked]

---

From: Dan Espen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:47:32 -0500

> added to the list of subscribers.

I don't agree.

Given the amount of work I do, I think it will be easy to override
my vote if others feel as you do.

Your stated plan is to leave Fvwm.  Have you reconsidered?

I don't think any tie-in with the software, especially as it
pertains to the license is a good idea.

Please uncommit until you get agreement so that I can continue
to check out, build, test until then.

> * supporting, planning, preparing or executing wars and other

I see you left out terrorist acts.

You are trying to involve Fvwm in something it shouldn't be
involved in.

-- 
Dan Espen                           E-mail: [email-masked]

---

From: Charles Hines <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:56:09 -0500

>>>>> "Dan" == Dan Espen <[email-masked]> writes:

>> added to the list of subscribers.

Dan> I don't agree.

Dan> Given the amount of work I do, I think it will be easy to override
Dan> my vote if others feel as you do.

I don't agree either, even though I haven't actually contributed since '98
(before the change to the GPL, the legality of I wondered about at the time)
and therefore am probably even more override-able.

I tried to stay out of this but it's getting hard to ignore, especially now
calling for "everyone who ever made any change to the CVS repository or
submitted a patch" to support it.  I suppose I fall into that latter category,
and therefore now felt the need to say that I don't support it.

...
Dan> I don't think any tie-in with the software, especially as it
Dan> pertains to the license is a good idea.
...
>> * supporting, planning, preparing or executing wars and other

Dan> I see you left out terrorist acts.

Dan> You are trying to involve Fvwm in something it shouldn't be
Dan> involved in.

This I agree with, fvwm is just a window manager, just leave the politics out
of it.  It's bad enough having to deal with or hear about the pseudo-politics
involved in all the other various wm and desktops out there let alone drag
"real" politics in.

On a slightly related note, I also thought it was odd (although a nice
gesture) to even mention the Sept 11th stuff anywhere with fvwm documents when
that happened too, but that was a little less contentious.

Out of curiousity, did anyone ask Rob Nation's point of view (privately of
course, since I didn't see anything on the list) about all of this when he
posted to the list the other day?  I don't really know him at all, but somehow
doubt that he would support it either, given his background and when/where he
developed fvwm originally.

I'll go back to simply lurking again now, as I don't want to get drawn into
any debates on all of this, merely wanted to let my position be known as well
so as to not seem to be agreeing because of my silence.

Chuck

-- 
Charles K. Hines   <[email-masked]>   <[email-masked]>
Principal Scientist at ReQuest Technologies Inc   (http://www.ReQuestTech.com/)

  "Behold my tongue of doom and tremble...TREMBLE!"  - Sheen (Jimmy Neutron,
                                                       "My Son, the Hamster")

---

From: SCoTT SMeDLeY <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 11:07:24 +1100

On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 05:47:32PM -0500, Dan Espen wrote:
: [email-masked] writes:
: > I have checked in a new license file with ethical license terms to
: > the development branch.  

<snip!>

: You are trying to involve Fvwm in something it shouldn't be
: involved in.

Hear hear!

Dominik, I (& it would appear many others here) have the utmost respect
for your intentions & sense of ethics. However, I cannot help but feel
this is an inappropriate manner in which to express them.

If you want to make a positive difference on these issues, you need to
get into politics, not software development. Lobbying politicians etc.
is infinitely more effective than anything you do (or don't do) with
a C-compiler.

SCoTT.
-- 
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:17:22 +0100

> I assume you mean 11 Sep 2001.

Yes, sure.  It's because you write the numbers in dates in the
wrong order in America ;-)

Bye

Dominik ^_^  ^_^

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 01:09:40 +0100

> > added to the list of subscribers.

I can also add a list of people who do not agree to the license.
Everyone, at least here and in the USA, has the right of free
speech, not just me.  Tell me what kind of statement you would
like to see in that file, and I will add one.

> Your stated plan is to leave Fvwm.  Have you reconsidered?

I am contributing right now, and probably for the rest of the
year.  Other than that, we will see what happens.

> pertains to the license is a good idea.

Why?

Any other form would be moot as it reaches nobody.

> to check out, build, test until then.

As the only requirement I made is that fvwm users read the ethical
license, and you seem to have read it, I see no reason why you can
not do these things.  If it is because we disagree on the contents
of the license, I can not help.  I have only one life, and I had
to make a choice.  I will not back out because that choice has
real consequences.  I have to stand the image I see in the mirror
tomorrow morning too.

> I see you left out terrorist acts.

I saw no need to overload the ethical license with terms that are
already made crystal clear by laws.  If it helps with acceptance
of the terms, I will happily add this.  But if it just helps
people to shut their eyes and say "I a'm already against
terrorism, isn't this enough?" I would rather leave the statements
as they are.

Dan, to be honest I am disappointed that you mention it at all.  I
have never said anything else but that I abhor any form of
violence, that *nothing* justifies violence.  My sympathy with the
victims of the terrorist attacks has not lessened a bit, and every
victim of this war and any other war will always receive the same
sympathy.  Your innuendo that I might have 'changed sides' hurts
me.  I will never argue who had more/less right to kill because
this whole logic is perverted and inhuman.  Even thinking of it
makes me feel sick.

> You are trying to involve Fvwm in something it shouldn't be

I have given much of my life-blood for it, and even if I have put
my work under the GPL I still hold the copyright for it.  And so I
can at least say that the parts that I wrote are involved in
ethics as my whole life is involved in ethics.

I don't want to be forced to think of the open source community as
something that happily absorbs any contributions and then tells me
to keep my opinions for myself.

Bye

Dominik ^_^  ^_^

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 01:27:26 +0100

Let's make this perfectly clear:

1. I do not accept that anybody takes advantage of *my* work to
support killing in any way (and I mean *any* way).  Not even if it
were my own parents.

2. The decision which of my actions are meant to be embedded in an
ethical context is mine to make.

3. I do not care one bit it my sense of ethics 'inconveniences'
someone else.  The matter is too grave to care about pangs of
conscience anybody may encounter.

And finally I hope we can keep politics out of this, because it is
not about politics - as I stated numerous times before.

Bye

Dominik ^_^  ^_^

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:36:32 +0100

New version, with the noteworthy changes underlined:

--

--------------------- COPYING -----------------------------------
Before using this software, every user is expected to read the
                                          ^^^^^^^^
statements in the file ETHICAL_LICENSE that comes with the fvwm
^^^^^^^^^^
distribution.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------- ETHICAL_LICENSE ---------------------------
Legally, fvwm is distributed under the terms of the GNU General
Public License.  However, the events following the 11th of
September, 2001 and the multinational war against Iraq that began
in March 2003, made me reconsider the (lack of) ethical aspects of
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
the license.  I can not ignore the fact that my work has a part in
^^^^^^^^^^^
killing people, no matter how small it may be.
[next sentence deleted]

No user of fvwm is bound to honour the following "ethical
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
licensing" terms.  But please keep in mind that fvwm is developed
by volunteers in their free time.  Blatant violation of these
terms by many people will not only demotivate me and possibly
                                                     ^^^^^^^^
others, reducing the quality of future fvwm releases, but may also
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
end development completely.

Dominik Vogt
(fvwm developer)

The donation can be monetary, human labour, donation in kind or
any other form that helps.  Any amount is accepted as long as it
lives up to the spirit of this license.  I suggest a donation to
Amnesty International, but you are free to choose a different
organization.

2. You are expected to not use fvwm for work related to

 * research of weapon technology,
 * manufacturing of weapons,
 * supporting, planning, preparing or executing wars and other
   military actions, or acts of terrorism.
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Bye

Dominik ^_^  ^_^

---

From: Ben Mathews <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 22:03:29 -0500

>added to the list of subscribers.

Although my contributions are pretty insignificant, I still would like 
to say that I do not agree with this license.

This license was not in effect when I contributed my code, and I think 
it is wrong to add it after the fact.  When I submitted my code I did so 
with the understanding that it would be under the GPL, nothing more and 
nothing less.  If I had known that my contributions would be used to 
further a political agenda that I do not agree with, I would have kept 
them to myself.

I don't believe that this is an appropriate outlet for your political 
beliefs.

Ben Mathews

---

From: Mikhael Goikhman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 03:38:34 +0000

> my vote if others feel as you do.

I don't like to disappoint you, Dominik, but I don't agree too.
I can't see myself agreeing with a license that discriminates people
based on their occupation, ethics or similar.

GNU GPL means free for everyone forever. No exceptions. Personally I am
not a god to decide who is meritorious to use my software and who is not.

> I see you left out terrorist acts.

One more thing is left out: using chemical, biological and nuclear
weapons (as something that affects an especially large amount of innocent
people) in the past or a possible future if we don't fight it.

To continue, think also about wars against the drug business and other
mafias.  What is more ethical, to kill several drug traffickers in a
skirmish or to let them to break thousands of people? It's clear for me.

Many thousands of people in just my country die in road accidents because
of drunken drivers. If I would want to be ethical and non-political, I
would rather discriminate drinking drivers than military engineers.

How about banks? My friend works in a state bank that deals with all
ministries, including financing of the Ministry of Defence.

With a little fantazy and rhetorics, every human in the world is guilty
and should not use FVWM.

> You are trying to involve Fvwm in something it shouldn't be

Agree, politics are too unclear and dirty to be constructive in software
developement.

Face it. Ethics, politics, religion always mean ego, nothing more than
this, everyone chooses what is better for his own safety or for the
safety of his family, his country, his god, whatever. Nothing special to
be prood of. There is no absolute human ethics. Unfortunately.

I wrote all this before receiving other thread messages. Now I see them.
Dominik, you say it is not political, but you still mention dates and
country names in the license as if the only innocent deaths in the world
were on these dates. It may have something to do with press headlines.
You don't want to be taken as someone who changes sides. I fully believe
you. Still I think my ethics is an ego as well as ethics of others.
People want to live. If you would live in a country where daily/monthly
terrorist acts or local wars are a reality (there are several such
countries), it is likely your ethics would be affected a lot by this.
I know (judging by myself) how it is comfortable to sit in a safe place
and demonstrate a protest against all the world "violence" without
knowing full details and without even wanting to know who and why becides
what the press says.

This is my opinion and it has no personal attacks at all.
Saying all this, if any dates and country names are removed from
ETHICAL_LICENSE, I am not against including this file if it makes some
developers feel better. I do want Dominik to continue the development.
I do respect his ethics and good will although I can't fully agree.

Regards,
Mikhael.

---

From: Uwe Pross <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:26:45 +0100

Good morning Fvwm Workers,

How about making a statement on the fvwm web site instead
of a new license? We could place some comments on the war
and the usage of fvwm either on the start page or on the
download page. 

We could say that we are against violation of human rights
(and terrorism) and wish that fvwm will not be used by
people supporting violation of human rights, terrorism or
war in any kind. (This has to be reworded - but in this
meaning)

We could also place a statement site, and link to it from
the start and download page. From this site we could link
to other sites like unicef, ... 

Can anyone go with this or anyone not? I think it is not
that strong as a license but it makes clear our objectives.

Regards, Uwe
-- 
+----------------------------------------------
| Uwe Pross
|    mailto:[email-masked]
|    http://www.tu-chemnitz.de/~uwp
+----------------------------------------------
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked]

---

From: Tim Phipps <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 08:35:02 +0000

>statements in the file ETHICAL_LICENSE that comes with the fvwm
I don't agree with this, I don't expect users of fvwm to even know it's 
GPL code. I don't expect the crazy people who compile the fvwm source to 
even read the COPYING file.  When I'm compiling stuff from source I 
usually scan the first screen full of all files starting with capitial 
letters, I don't care if it's GPL or BSD as long as I can use it for 
free. I would be OK with you adding this to COPYING:

===
Before using this software, please read the ETHICAL_LICENSE file that
comes with the fvwm distribution.
===

I also think you should put a short introduction to the ETHICAL_LICENSE 
file that lists those who support it. Not me I'm afraid, I'm British and 
I agree with the war against the Iraqi dictatorship.

Cheers,
Tim.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 11:24:01 +0100

Wrapping up the answers to several posts:

On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 09:26:45AM +0100, Uwe Pross wrote:
> of a new license? 
 
Strictly speaking, it is no more than a statement, not a license.
I call it a license and put it in the sources in order to force
Linux distributors to mention it.  I do not want that it can be
completely ignored.  And I will not tinker with the "license"
until no more than drivel remains.

--

Several people called it 'inappropriate' or 'the wrong way' to
involve my work in ethics.  I might add that the "Ethical Use"
statement refers only to the code I have written, but the effect
is the same.  And let me express again that I find I much worse
than inappropriate to solve anything by killing.

--

On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 08:35:02AM +0000, Tim Phipps wrote:
> When I'm compiling stuff from source I
> free.

The ethical license affects the GPL in no way.

> I would be OK with you adding this to COPYING:
>
> ===

In other words, I should soften the wording until it can be safely
ignored without the risk of having a slightly bad conscience?
Sorry, I can not comply to this.  The whole idea of an opt-in
ethical use statement is a bad joke.

> file that lists those who support it.

It already has.

> Not me I'm afraid, I'm British and I agree with the war against
> the Iraqi dictatorship.

I do not understand this.  In how far does being British, German,
American, Chinese or Martian affect ethics?

--

> weapons ... [cut political opinions]

How would you qualify this if not as a military action or an act
of terrorism?  Now, if I would start discriminating between types
of actions or weapons the statement would really become political.
Killing millions with nuclear weapons is equally unethical as
putting a knife in the back of a mass murderer.

> To continue, think also about wars against the drug business and
> other mafias.  What is more ethical, to kill several drug
> traffickers in a skirmish or to let them to break thousands of
> people?

Yes, for me too.  Both is utterly unethical.  A human life is a
human life is a human life.

> ministries, including financing of the Ministry of Defence.

Mikhael, believe me that I have thought thoroughly about this.  I
concluded that if I started listing everything that could take
part in one of said unethical actions, the statement would grow up
to a state where it becomes meaningless.

> be prood of.
> There is no absolute human ethics. Unfortunately.

But that does not mean that ethics are a private decision.  Quite
the opposite, if you accept that people choose ethics too their
liking, you must accept too if terrorists who kill people do it
because they see it as their ethical duty to do so.  If you do not
acknowledge that, ethics becomes pure caprisiousness.  What you
say sounds like "killing is wrong, except when I think it it
right".

> were on these dates.

Outside of the license.  It is only in the accompanying comment.

Bye

Dominik ^_^  ^_^

---

From: Mikhael Goikhman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 12:50:00 +0000

> ethical use statement is a bad joke.

If you put it in README and not COPYING, it will not sound as a bad joke.

> American, Chinese or Martian affect ethics?

If this does not affect ethics, how can you explain that most of the
people choose (agree to) the position of their countries? After all
these people elected their politicians or are forced by their dictator.

> putting a knife in the back of a mass murderer.

I can't agree. This may be true by your ethics, not by my ethics.
(Read: by your ego, not by my ego.)

You may only afford to be a humanitarian when you are not directly
involved in a conflict. When you are involved, you should choose sides.

> > people? It's clear to me.
> 

What is a human life? The god's creature, shrine? I am not religious, so
this is not my ethics. Does the animal life is as important as the human
life? If it is as important, you should fight against killing locusts,
midges, cockroach and dosens of others. If it is less important, it is a
human despotism. Since I believe that the basis of all ethical beliefs is
egoism, I have no problem to state that a human life is more important.

Although I would egoistically fight for my own life and the life of my
family, I don't see my life as something holy by itself. I believe in
evolution. If I die, it is ok as long as the humanity in the whole
prospers. Similary about the lives of others. Thinking otherwise is
caprisious by my ethics.

> because they see it as their ethical duty to do so.

I fully realize a terrorist has his own ethics. Since our ethics are
quite opposite (he wants to kill me in name of his gods), I prefer to
fight him and kill him to live myself.

> If you do not acknowledge that, ethics becomes pure caprisiousness. 
> What you say sounds like "killing is wrong, except when I think it it
> right".

It does not only sounds like this, it is exactly this. Everyone thinks
killing is wrong (because she does not like to be killed), except when
she thinks it is right (because she would be killed otherwise).

I have no any ethical problem to realize this.

The entire life is choosing sides. I think we all are on the same side,
we write Free Software, there is no need to expose sides where we differ.
Like social status, profession, country, cultural/religious ethics etc.

Regards,
Mikhael.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:11:39 +0100

> If you put it in README and not COPYING, it will not sound as a bad joke.

The whole idea of opt-in ethics is ridiculous.  I don't see why it
would make any difference.

> these people elected their politicians or are forced by their dictator.

In many so-called democratic countries, the media mostly generate
the public opinion.  This is especially bad in countries where
they are mostly controlled by the government.  People with
different opinions are often discriminated - you can see this
both, in America and in Germany.

> involved in a conflict. When you are involved, you should choose sides.

That's the one big lie I always hear from people who do not even
want to consider if what they are supporting might be wrong.  At
least I can afford to be a humanitarian, regardless of what
happens - as you see: I am attacked from all sides right now.

> egoism, I have no problem to state that a human life is more important.

I am not religious either.  The only 'definition' of morality I
have ever seen that I can agree with (although nobody can justify
it) is Kant's categorical imperative:  Act only according to
maxims of which you can want that they become a common law.  All
other attempts of definition i can think of eventually run down to
treating some people differently than others.

Regarding the "human despotism":  I acknowledge there are two
fundamental aspects of human existence.  The first is the human
being as a product of evolution, as an animal among others.  As
far as I know, animals are not capable of considering ethical
questions.  In so far it makes little sense to talk about ethics
in this sphere.  The second is the human as a thinking being who
has an at least partially free will (if not, we can as well stop
talking now).  In this sphere, it does not make much sense to
think about ethics in other than human matters.  But then, both
spheres overlap in many areas, which makes talking about ethics
immensely difficult.

> fight him and kill him to live myself.

Does this not run down to:  whoever is stronger should kill his
opponent before the opponent kills him?  No, I believe that it is
vital to not respond to a threat in kind.  To prevent falling back
into barbarity we have to accept the same verdict that you are
deliver upon others.

Just consider this for a minute:  If through some unforeseen
events the 'western' democracies became more or less irrelevant
countries, and the Arabian peoples came to control the world.
Wouldn't we (the citizens of the western democracies) all have to
fear for our lives, because we humiliated the Arabic peoples for
decades, claiming our way of life is inherently better than
theirs?

That may be a purely hypothetical situation, but isn't that the
whole idea of ethics:  do *not* do everything you *can* do without
having to fear the consequences, but acknowledge certain rules to
help maintaining a certain level of order.

Bye

Dominik ^_^  ^_^

---

From: Cameron Simpson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 12:24:47 +1000

On 12:50 29 Mar 2003, Mikhael Goikhman <[email-masked]> wrote:
| > > Not me I'm afraid, I'm British and I agree with the war against
| > > the Iraqi dictatorship.
| > 
| > I do not understand this.  In how far does being British, German,
| > American, Chinese or Martian affect ethics?
| 
| If this does not affect ethics, how can you explain that most of the
| people choose (agree to) the position of their countries? After all
| these people elected their politicians or are forced by their dictator.

Bosh.

In a democracy you don't get to pick policies. The best you get to do is
vote for whatever power group least offends you. And in most systems,
if that's not one of the few major groups your vote gets discarded.
There are preferential scheme, but that basicly means your voite gets
moved to another power group. And once they're in they can basicly do
as they please.

The current agression in Iraq supplies a classic example: in Oz, if pretty
clear that the majority of the population oppse the war and our role in
it. Our glorious leader basicly has the view that it's his prerogative
to go forth anyway. The US leader has the same attitude: he's asserted
the power to make war without going through his Congress.

Anyway, I support Dominik's approach: it doesn't require people to take
his views or even to support pacifistic organisations as he wishes. Merely
to get people to think seriously about it and consider some/all of the
wishes of the code authors.

Personally I think FVWM is a neutral tool. Very unlike, say, a gun,
whole purpose is to kill or injure others - it is fundamentally a weapon,
whatever the mindset of the person brandishing it.
But I'll support Dominik's approach here.

Cheers,
-- 
Cameron Simpson, DoD#743        [email-masked]    http://www.zip.com.au/~cs/

Your modesty is typically human, so I will overlook it.	- a Klingon

---

From: [email-masked] (larry gensch)
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:20:24 -0500 (EST)

> until no more than drivel remains.

But why call it a license in the first place?

I don't have any problem with people reacting to controversial events,
or even them making their feelings known, whether or not I agree with
them.

If this is no more than a statement, as you claim, then you should
call it an ETHICAL_STATMENT (or DOMINICKS_ETHICAL_STATEMENT if you
wish to split hairs) and declare that you hope that fvwm isn't used to
further agendas that you disagree with, such as warmaking, terrorism,
and other things that are Not Healthy For Children And Other Living
Things.  Whether or not it is ignored is immaterial.

By calling what you've written a license will make Linux distributors
want to shy away from fvwm.  RedHat has already dropped fvwm from its
distribution (for other reasons, I should point out), and I know for a
fact that Debian will not distribute anything that appears to attempt
to dilute the GPL.  Are we looking to be dropped by everybody?  If
this is your desire, then your message will not be seen by anybody! 

In addition, I have seen at least one response to your "license" from
a developer that claims that he supports the current conflict.  That
developer should have as much right as you to add his own language to
that statement, or provide his own separate statement as a matter of
ballance.

Dominick, I feel your pain, and even share your frustration at recent
events, but I really feel that what you are doing is not good for
fvwm, nor is it good for the fvwm community.

I seriously urge you to reconsider your actions.

-- 
Larry Gensch                                          [email-masked]

---

From: Mikhael Goikhman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 16:30:25 +0000

I really don't like to answer this message, because I don't see a point.
We speak now which ethics is better, but this is irrelevant, the
developers (at least the ones who answered) expressed a wish not to mix
ethics with software.

Anyway, it seems Dominik wants to talk about ethics, so I will show my
point of view. It was evolved with years, I was pretty much maximalist,
cosmopolitan and idealist in adolescence, anti-yankee too. Since then I
decided it was mostly rubbish and there is a much more clean position -
minimalism, that means try not to add anything you can't verify or feel
yourself, like religion or ethics. Operate only on the ego basis if you
don't want to be a hypocrite. Any universal ethics is bullshit designed
to hide someone's ego as something more superior than others.

On 29 Mar 2003 17:11:39 +0100, [email-masked] wrote:
> want to consider if what they are supporting might be wrong.

Do you know what is right and what is wrong? I don't know. By a chance,
do you know what is right for me? I don't have such ethical problems
about what is _right_ and what is wrong, I (just like everyone else)
support only what is _good_ for me, pure egoistical. I know the regime
you are indirectly supporting breaks human rights and kills innocent
people in its own country. I know it used inconventional weapons in the
past against other countries. I know the regime finances thousands of
terorrists and their families. These same terrorists killed several
thousand of innocent people (I may give their names if you like).
I don't want this to happen to me. You would also not want this to happen
to anyone, but unfortunately only after feeling all this on yourself.
Please don't say you already don't want this to anyone, what you
effectively do is quite an opposite.

> At least I can afford to be a humanitarian, regardless of what happens
> - as you see: I am attacked from all sides right now.

I don't think anyone attacks you, really, we all love peace, it just that
some people have another view of the situation.

Anyway, expect to be attacked if you activelly fight against a natural
people's wish to live in peace and prosperity without uncontrolled
dictators. You simply don't know what people in all countries close to
this war feel and want.

> treating some people differently than others.

Does this mean you never treat some people differently than others?
If so, I think you would want to remove ETHICAL_LICENSE that treats a lot
of people differently than others based on your criterion not even laws.

> spheres overlap in many areas, which makes talking about ethics

Again, I don't have such ethical ambiguity. You make a distinction
between humans and animals, this is pretty much how religious people
describe things. For me it is still a human ego (or evolution whatever
you call it). People don't kill animals for the sake of it, because it
hurts the nature balance (means hurts people), but kill animals for self
defence and for food (or shortly for survival). I am pretty comfortable
with my minimalistic ethical basis. I would feel very uncomfortable with
your ethical basis as you described above regarding humans and animals.

> > prospers. Similary about the lives of others. Thinking otherwise is

[...]

> opponent before the opponent kills him?

Yes, exactly, if one opponent tries to kill another, it is likely only
one will survive.

Fortunately people don't usually want to kill each other, so there is
usually a time for talks. The smarter both sides the smaller probability
of conflicts. If one side is fanatical (not smart), no talks are
possible. You don't really want to defend the fanatics, they don't know
your ethics and may kill you without any ethical problem. Just because
you are not currently on their way, does not mean it will not happen.

> No, I believe that it is vital to not respond to a threat in kind.  To
> prevent falling back into barbarity we have to accept the same verdict
> that you are deliver upon others.

Did you ask yourself why democratic countries usually don't fight each
other? Because free people would not allow this. They would change a
leader (or maybe he would leave himself) if he is stupid enough not to
prevent a war between countries that surely can solve conflicts with
talks/resources, not wars. Only uncontrolled regimes may allow wars
between countries and unjustified deaths of their own people.

> help maintaining a certain level of order.

I know only facts. "Arabian peoples" is too much millions to throw into
one basket. There are some democraties like Turkey. Most of the Iraq
neighbour coutries are against this dictatorship, some activelly support
this war, so please don't try to image the war as "western" against
"arabical", this is bullshit. But I don't really want neither support nor
condemn this war, I don't know all details. Just like we all.

Democratic countries are more developed, free people are more effective.
These are facts. In some non-democratic countries you have uneducated
masses and poverty. Do you think people in these countries enjoy their
situation? How do you know, did you ask them? If you want to be real
humanitarian, you may consider to support increasing of the education
level in these countries, not to speak about basic human freedoms.
I do want all these countries to eventually become democratic (means
rich, educated and developed), this seems to be the only effective way to
win terrorism. No, wars are not solution, but any indirect support of the
dictatorship regimes only hurts people in these and all other countries.
Unfortunately the war protesters do not realize they hurt real people.

Hmm, I don't believe I speak politics on this list. Shame on us both.
Again, a question of supporting or not supporting some war is fully
irrelevant when the developers do not want to go away from pure GPL.

Regards,
Mikhael.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 20:30:19 +0200

On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 04:30:25PM +0000, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
> people in its own country.

Wait a moment, how did you get that idea?  From what I have said
up to here it should be *perfectly clear* that I support *no* use
of weapons.  I reject the logic behind your statement.  I am
against the use of weapons, yes.  I am against it in wars claiming
to be righteous, I am against it to suppress people, I am against
it in any possible case.  Full stop.  Claiming that I indirectly
support unjust use of weapons is one-sided at best, maybe even
malicious.

> I know it used inconventional weapons in the past against other
> countries.

Yes, Iraq did use chemical weapons in the war against Iraq.  I do
not accept that in any way.  However, as a citizen of a country
which has not only used chemical weapons but also nuclear weapons
in the past, you should be careful with that resoning.

> I know the regime finances thousands of

Excuse me, but there is absolutely *no* proof for your claims
that was released to the public.  I don't want to see what would
happen in the world if a mere suspicion would be enough to justify
killing.  There are other, non-violent ways to deal with such
threats.

> effectively do is quite an opposite.

No, it is not.  You claim the right to react to a threat in any
way.  I deny the right to react to a threat in violent ways.  That
still leaves a broad range of non-violent reations.  History and
common sense teach us that violence never works to solve
conflicts.  It may seem work if one of the opponents is far
superior to the others, but unless you completely wipe out the
opposition, you will regret it later.

> dictators. You simply don't know what people in all countries close to

All I can say is:  wake up.  We (the people in the western
democracies) all want peace.  Sure.  But we usually do not care
one bit about the peoples in other countries, humiliate them, let
our secret services murder democratic governments or encourage
terrorists to do so, suport vile dictators for economic reasons,
exploit their resources and let people die from thrirst and
hunger, deny them modern medicines because they are too poor to
pay the license fees.  And then, when people become so desperate
that some individuals hate us and throw bombs in our direction we
are surprised and whine "They have no reason to do this, they must
all be fanatics, intent on killing us beyond reason."

Yes, we all want peace, but we are still not prepared to pay the
price for it.  You do not get peace for free, you have to fight
for it.

> Does this mean you never treat some people differently than others?

I try not to.

> of people differently than others based on your criterion not even laws.

When I ask that my work is not used, for example, to manufacture
weapons, how does this wish discriminate between people?  I assume
that nobody is forced to do this.

> Yes, exactly, if one opponent tries to kill another, it is likely only

And you think peace can be achieved with this reasoning?  What you
say is the ultimate justification for *any* war and *any* murder.
It almost *demands* that people who can kill you have to kill you,
because they might feel threatened by your attitude.

> possible.

> You don't really want to defend the fanatics, they don't know
> your ethics and may kill you without any ethical problem.

That assumption is not correct.  I do acknowledge the right not
to be killed, even for people who want to kill me.  That does not
mean I want to be killed.  But it does forbid me to force them
into a situation where killing is inevitable.

> Just because

Yes, much of what you say is true, as far as I can judge.  But
please, why do we have to *bomb* these peoples to democracy,
freedom and prosperity.  These must be ways that at least do not
cost the lives of civilians.

> win terrorism.

> No, wars are not solution, but any indirect support of the

Well, you ask for it, so I can not spare you the comment.  The
USA (and other countries exporting wepons) has equipped Saddam
Hussein with weapons to fight a war against Iran more than a
decade ago.  Later these and other weapons were used to suppress
the Iraqi people.  These are facts nobody can deny.  This does not
justify anything, but it can teach us that we *really* should
think more of what purpose weapons do serve.

> Unfortunately the war protesters do not realize they hurt real people.

You are reducing the peace novement to "No to all wars".  But that
has never been the message.  The message is that all goals for
which ("just") wars are started can be achieved with peaceful
means.  You can only claim that war protesters hurt people if you
think they would do nothing if the war stopped.  What makes me sad
is that nobody listens to pacifists *before* a war has started.

> Hmm, I don't believe I speak politics on this list. Shame on us both.

Well, I tried not to, but some replies forced me to.  Of course I
do not want this list to become a political forum, but on the
other hand, wueations of life and death are definitely more
important than mailing list discipline.  You may remember my plea
not to discuss 9/11 here, but that was basically because I feared
it would turn into a flame war.

> irrelevant

> when the developers do not want to go away from pure GPL.

Sigh!  Again:  the "ethical license" does not, read: *not*, affect
the GPL.  Claiming that it does is just plain wrong.

Bye

Dominik ^_^  ^_^

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 19:05:18 +0200

> But why call it a license in the first place?

For psychological reasons.  Statement are generally ignored by
people who do not agree with them from the start.

> wish to split hairs) and declare that you hope that fvwm isn't used to

Oh well, this is a big misunderstanding.  I do not *hope* that my
work is not misused.  Actually I *know* that it is misused.  I
*demand* that is is not.  I do not plan to make it a legal issue,
but an ethical one.  With the whole statement I do not want to
express that I am sorry that wars (etc.) happen, but demand that
my work is not used to make them happen.  Everything less would
only be a parody of my motives.

> this is your desire, then your message will not be seen by anybody! 

Anyone who cares to read the statement should be able to verify
that it is not a legal license within two minutes.  If that is not
enough - tough luck.

> that statement, or provide his own separate statement as a matter of

And I do not deny this right.  Everybody is welcome to do so, and
I will not lift a finger to prevent that.  I can live perfectly
well with different opinions.  But I have and claim the right to
state my opinion about using the work I created in hundreds of
hours of voluntary work, even in a way that some people find
annoying.

> fvwm, nor is it good for the fvwm community.

Did I ever say or even suggest that the statement is intended to
be good for fvwm?  When human lives are at risk, how can I
seriously consider by how many people a mere set of bits and bytes
is used?

> I seriously urge you to reconsider your actions.

I have reconsidered them a lot, and I listen to all of the
criticism.  I have removed all strict requirements from what I had
in mind at first.  What remains can be ignored, without any legal
impact.  But I will *not* make it easy to ignore.  The statement
is not intended as some general bla bla which everybody can agree
to without even thinking about it.

Bye

Dominik ^_^  ^_^

---

From: Mikhael Goikhman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 21:09:40 +0000

Well, it got too much into politics to continue it.

The Dominik's reply makes some incorrect assumtions like I am from US and
do not know facts. I am from one of the several countries that commanded
all citizens to carry gaz masks with themselves (because Iraq may still
respond although most of the bases are fortunately destroyed) and I know
more facts about the situation than an average man who only reads press.

I will provide proofs that Dominik asked for privately. If Dominik wants
he may write to the list that he received them and thinks they are valid.
But this is fully optional. Noone will change their mind anyway.

I don't want to agitate against peace attempts, I believe in peace talks.
But humanity will simply not survive with suicidal ethics like "killing
mass murderers and terrorists is bad".

As for us, we should better return to our command lines. :)

Regards,
Mikhael.

---

From: "Paul Smith" <[email-masked]>
Date: 30 Mar 2003 21:08:48 -0500

Hi Dominik...

There has been a lot of discussion about whether the ideas expressed in
the "ethical license" are really ethical or not (is it ethical to kill a
person?  Is it ethical to not kill a person who is directly threatening
yourself or your children?  Etc.)

This kind of thing is, unfortunately, a morass from which there is very
little chance of breaking free.

It is _this_ aspect that I want to address: you have lamented that this
has become politicized but you must take full responsibility for that
yourself: there is no politics here except in this context.  Indeed, my
understanding was that this was the entire purpose: you wanted to
politicize FVWM to keep it from being used in a manner which you
disagreed with.

The problem is that ethics are not absolute, and they are not even
universal.

What if some other FVWM developer is fervently opposed to abortion,
looks at your license and decides that the underlying theme of
non-violence should also apply to the unborn.  They add their own
"ethical license" stating that FVWM should not be used by abortion
clinics or other medical facilities that practice abortion, nor should
it be used by facilities like Planned Parenthood that provide counseling
that includes abortion as a viable alternative.

Next, another FVWM developer adds another "ethical license" which is
against all forms of suicide, including doctor-assisted suicide for
terminal patients in great pain, and doesn't allow FVWM to be used by
any facility which supports or even researches this.

Then someone adds an "ethical license" stating that FVWM should not be
used by any group that does not support the "war on drugs"--or that it
should not be used by any group that _does_ support the "war on drugs".

Next we might have licenses regarding homosexuality, or adoption by
homosexual couples, or pro/con gay marriage, or whatever.

And so it goes.

I generally consider "slippery slope" arguments as somewhat weak, but I
believe this is a real danger here.  Once we accept that an open source
software project is a legitimate platform for political (or, call it
"ethical" if you prefer) agendas, where does it stop?

You may say "well, it's not a real license so people can just ignore
it".  But people who are really ethical _won't_ just ignore it: if they
are ethical they will feel bound to not use the software if they don't
agree with _all_ of the ideas espoused in the "ethical license(s)".
With enough of these sorts of licenses there may well be almost no one
who happens to hold all of these ethical beliefs simultaneously.

So what do you have then?  Ironically enough, what you probably have is
that only people who are _not_ ethical will be using your
software... to me this seems counterproductive in the extreme.

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:38:04 +0200

> that includes abortion as a viable alternative.

[more examples deleted]

> And so it goes.

It should be clear by now that I would not object to more of these
statements.  Other people have the same right to do so as I have.

> software... to me this seems counterproductive in the extreme.

That is all true if such a flood of statements would come.  But as
it is, I do not fear this possibility.  People on this list have
proven time and again that this kind of 'war' is extremely
unlikely to happen.  I also listen to everybody, and I try to make
the "license" acceptable for as many people as possible without
betraying its motivation.

Bye

Dominik ^_^  ^_^

---

From: Dan Espen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 06:33:24 -0500

> betraying its motivation.

You misunderstood my statement about terrorists.
It is the same point Paul made so much better.

Please remove all political (in your words ethical) statements
from the fvwm sources and web site.

Until then I won't be participating in any way.

Sorry.

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:04:03 +0200

> from the fvwm sources and web site.

I may not understand that correctly.  By "remove all political
statements", do you mean to remove certain parts of the ethical
license, or to remove it completely?

Bye

Dominik ^_^  ^_^

---

From: Dan Espen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 08:16:38 -0500

> license, or to remove it completely?

Completely.

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:22:52 +0200

> > license, or to remove it completely?

The I have to choose between ethics and hobby.  So be it.  I'll
take ethics.

Bye

Dominik ^_^  ^_^

---

From: "Paul Smith" <[email-masked]>
Date: 31 Mar 2003 10:27:15 -0500

>> And so it goes.

  dv> It should be clear by now that I would not object to more of these
  dv> statements.  Other people have the same right to do so as I have.

So, let me ask you this.

Suppose someone adds an "ethical license" you don't agree with.  Would
you continue to work on FVWM?  On the assumption the answer is "no",
wouldn't you feel upset that someone had imposed their ethics on your
work, and had essentially co-opted all the hard work you've done on FVWM
over the years, so that you could no longer in good conscience work on
it?

And now that we have seen that all (?) of the other FVWM developers
don't agree with the inclusion of the license, and some don't agree with
the ethics behind it either, what should we do?  Surely these people
also feel like their hard work is being co-opted for purposes they don't
agree with, or at least in ways they don't agree with, and which are
completely unrelated to FVWM.

  >> So what do you have then?  Ironically enough, what you probably
  >> have is that only people who are _not_ ethical will be using your

  dv> That is all true if such a flood of statements would come.  But as
  dv> it is, I do not fear this possibility.  People on this list have
  dv> proven time and again that this kind of 'war' is extremely
  dv> unlikely to happen.

Hm.  So you believe it's OK to do this because everyone else objects to
the idea that FVWM is an appropriate forum for political statements and
so they won't take advantage of it, leaving you the only person who does?

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:57:41 +0200

> so they won't take advantage of it, leaving you the only person who does?

*Shrug*  This discussion is becoming moot.  I will not tolerate
anymore that my work takes a part in killing.  If the only way to
do it is to stop development of fvwm and somehow prevent that fvwm
is distributed, then I have to do my best to make that happen.

Bye

Dominik ^_^  ^_^

---

From: Ian Remmler <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:00:29 -0600

> statements.  Other people have the same right to do so as I have.

I believe that including the ethical license with FVWM is unethical.
Can I add a statement to the ethical license saying as much?  Yes, this
would be paridoxical, and I think this illustrates the problem quite
well.

I am an FVWM user.  I love FVWM, and I applaud the efforts of you and
all FVWM developers past and present for making the best window manager,
period.  But this ethical license is not appropriate.  Threatening that
use of FVWM by people whos ethics do not coincide with yours may "end
development completely" is petty and almost certainly untrue.

FVWM is free software.  Free software is a brilliant example of what
people can accomplish through peaceful international cooperation.  I
think your license will undermine the spirit of free software with
respect to FVWM.  You state that the license is not binding, but the
license says that FVWM users are "expected to" abide by its
requirements.  This does not sound conditional.

I seriously hope you reconsider.  If the license remains, do not be
surprised if someone creates an "fvwm-unethical" fork that is identical
to the official version, less the ETHICAL_LICENSE.  I hope that will not
be necessary.

	- Ian.

---

From: "Paul Smith" <[email-masked]>
Date: 31 Mar 2003 12:48:45 -0500

dv> *Shrug* This discussion is becoming moot.  I will not tolerate
  dv> anymore that my work takes a part in killing.  If the only way to
  dv> do it is to stop development of fvwm and somehow prevent that fvwm
  dv> is distributed, then I have to do my best to make that happen.

We cannot agree to these conditions: we won't allow you to either stop
the development of FVWM or prevent FVWM from being distributed.

Peace.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 20:20:06 +0200

> to the official version, less the ETHICAL_LICENSE.  I hope that will not

The only thing left to consider for me is how to use my copyright
to prevent further distribution of fvwm.

Bye

Dominik ^_^  ^_^