PETA Creates New Animal-Friendly Software License 356
Anders writes "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the largest animal rights organization in the world, endorse a new FLOSS license. From the article: 'The Harm-Less Permissive License (HPL) is a permissive, non copyleft, software license. It is based on the FreeBSD license but with one additional restriction; the "harm-less" clause. It prevents software, licensed under the HPL, to be used for harming humans or animals.'" I guess this leaves the bunny-fueled power plant in Stockholm out in the cold.
Thats nice... (Score:3, Insightful)
Does it really matter? (Score:2, Insightful)
Not "free" (Score:3, Insightful)
endorse a new FLOSS license. [...] It prevents software, licensed under the HPL, to be used for harming humans or animals.
Then it is not a FLOSS license. It restricts use ("freedom 0"), however noble the cause may be. (emphasis in "may"). It may not even be an EULA instead of a Licence.
Define "harm" and "animal" (Score:2, Insightful)
If I use this license, I am using a computer, which uses energy, which expends carbon dioxide from coal production, which harms the environment, which harms animals living in that environment. Am I legally unable to apply this license of my own volition?
If I use this license to create an alarm clock to wake people up, is that harm enough to them? Are they considered animals for the purpose of this license?
You mean *this* PETA? (Score:5, Insightful)
http://articles.sfgate.com/2005-06-23/opinion/17379611_1_peta-s-web-animal-cruelty-dead-animals [sfgate.com]
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/ [petakillsanimals.com]
http://www.newsweek.com/id/134549 [newsweek.com]
and so on and so forth.
Fuck PETA. I feel my money and time would be better spent supporting the ASPCA. At least they don't make me want to cringe every time I hear or read about them.
I've pretty much reached the point where I equate PETA to Scientology. They're both a bunch of loonies with more money than sense.
Don't use if you want to let others reuse your cod (Score:2, Insightful)
A big problem with this kind of license is that it doesn't work well with other licenses, like the GPL, that don't allow people to add restrictions. If you wanted to combine HPL and GPL code in a program, you couldn't do it - making it GPL would violate the HPL; making it HPL or "GPL-plus-don't-hurt-animals" would violate the GPL.
PETA is redundant, we have the SPCA (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a fairly radical leftist and even I find PETA to be utterly ridiculous and ineffective. They harm their own cause with their hard line stance and near-terrorist (some would say, get rid of the 'near' part) actions. Sea Kittens? [peta.org] Really? And PETA have 'rescued' animals, only to let them die because they did not know how to care for them or did not have the resources. They are buffoons.
If you want to support a legitimate group with the same or very similar goals, support the SPCA I'm all about reducing suffering and cruelty, in animals and humans. But animals are delicious. An animal, raised right by humans for food, suffers FAR LESS than its wild counterpart. Being raised by a good rancher is a great bargain for a cow. A pleasant life with plentiful food and no predation, in exchange for a quick and painless death. If I were a cow, I'd take that over constant fear of predators and the threat of starvation.
Re:Thats nice... (Score:3, Insightful)
Too bad PETA routinely euthanizes animals by the thousands. They classify these poor animals as unadoptable.
It's all in the interpretation (Score:3, Insightful)
Use of any software consumes power and requires hardware. The creation of the power or the hardware for the creation of the power or the system hardware itself required the destruction of some component of the environment.
Also the consumption of power emits waste heat which contributes to global warming.
The plain simple fact is software in general is bad for animals.
PETA is to animals... (Score:1, Insightful)
PETA is to animals as Hitler was to Jews. Hitler "liberated" a few million Jews from their "suffering", which is what PETA does to animals. Many people think PETA exists to stop abuse of animals (like many other organisations), but they actually exist to stop human dependence on animals. Which if taken to its conclusion would result in a hell of a lot less animals being around on the planet. In their world view it is better for a cow to be dead than to be in "bondage" to a farmer.
Oh, and high ranking members of PETA have been caught supporting eco-terrorists. They are Earth worshippers who should be declared a religious cult so that they don't go around warping kids minds by pretending to have some secular agenda.
PETA Kills more animals than it saves .... (Score:2, Insightful)
Thank you. I was a vegan for many years (Score:5, Insightful)
and still can't stand PETA. "Buffoons" is the best way I've heard them described. Lavish expenses while they euthanize pets brought to them with the expectation of care. Financial support and a personnel revolving door with the ELF/ALF/HSUS crowd. Ridiculous campaigns that will only appeal to young children which seems appropriate to them since they often leaflet K-6 institutions and events with graphic material.
For every friend they make and funnel into a life of sad social marginality and constant maudlinity, they make a dozen enemies that after having contact with PETA will never, ever consider going vegetarian or vegan for any reason whatsoever.
Attention whores (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:PETA is redundant, we have the SPCA (Score:5, Insightful)
> If I were a cow, I'd take that over constant fear of predators and the threat of starvation.
You pre-ordered and iPad, didn't you?
No. iPads are not delicious, even blended.
Re:FLOSS software? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'll take it even further. A number of years I was asked to "debate" a member of PETA in a local hogh school. I was representing a local ag group. The PETA rep quite pointedly said that if she could get away with it she would "cut the brake lines on your car if in some way your death would help save animals". (Which is also why I'm posting as AC!)
Re:(needed disclaimer) (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't like PETA and think folks who are convicted of eco-terror should be sent to Gitmo.
Re:FLOSS software? (Score:5, Insightful)
all plants are living things too. Why is it more right to eat them than the good old mmmmm grilled bee
It should be obvious that the vegetarian argument is based upon a creature's capacity to experience pain and suffering. This is why there is in fact a gradation in vegetarianism: the most hard-line won't eat any animal at all, whereas some will eat some types of animals (e.g. shrimp) that they deem sufficiently primitive that they likely do not experience pain or suffering. Our best data suggest that plants cannot experience anything at all (much less pain and suffering), hence there is no moral argument against using them as a food source. (Whereas it's pretty clear that many mammals can experience pain and suffering.)
You may disagree with the argument (that's fine), but don't mis-characterize it. In fact, most people do agree with the argument, but merely set the line somewhere different (they will consider it wrong to kill other humans, and even primates, for food).
I think omnivorous humans need to stop using weak logic to defend their habits. They should just accept that their meat-eating does indeed cause environmental damage, and animal suffering, but that they consider this an acceptable compromise given the luxury that meat-eating represents. (Meat-eating is hardly the only luxury in modern society that has negative environmental consequences.) Conversely, if you just can't handle the thought that your luxurious diet causes environmental damage and animal suffering, then perhaps you should change your diet.
Re:Don't make me laugh (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Define "harm" and "animal" (Score:3, Insightful)
It's PETA. Of course humans don't count as animals. They'd prefer all humans on earth to just die and let the animals live in peace and harmony and never experience pain or fear again.
Yes, they are that stupid.
Re:FLOSS software? (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether a plant experiences pain and suffering depends on your definition of it. Plants do respond to detrimental contact with defensive reactions, which may include the release of ethylene gas (a signaling agent), generation and use of hormones and infection-blocking chemicals, and emission of paralyzing agents upon attack by certain insects. Animals usually run, cower, or lash out as defensive reactions to detrimental contact, though some also make use of signals (shrieks, yelps, cries, or roars), hormones (adrenaline), and even some paralyzing agents (snakes and scorpions, for example).
I am an omnivore. I am neither proud or ashamed of this; it is a simple fact that humans are omnivores, and their ancestors have been for at least the last few hundred thousand years, perhaps even several million years. We do eat more meat than we used to, and we should probably shift this back the other way some, but that doesn't mean that eating meat is itself unnatural. Should some people choose to eat according to a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle, I am happy to leave them to their choice. I am just as happy when they leave me to my choice. I do like to think that the animals that are slaughtered for my food suffer as little as possible, but I am not so naive as to think that they do not feel any fear or suffering. It's part of the price paid for the convenience of eating meat.
Re:FLOSS software? (Score:3, Insightful)
Eating someone else's dog is certainly not OK. Just like it would not be OK to eat someone else's pig. Or someone else's banana, for that matter.
Re:FLOSS software? (Score:3, Insightful)
Whether a plant experiences pain and suffering depends on your definition of it.
True enough, but I think our current best data does indeed suggest that the ability of, say, a mammal to process and store information, sensation, and memories greatly exceeds that of, say, a tree. The human conception of "pain and suffering" does indeed seem to depend on the existence of a central nervous system. While philosophically we can think about whether other complex entities (like plants) have different kinds of experiences and thus are subject to pain and suffering, I think our best data strongly suggest that animals experience "the human-like" pain and suffering whereas plants do not.
I also have an omnivore diet, and fully-agree that such a diet is both natural and historical. But "natural" does not mean "moral", and in fact a great many things that we cherish as being ethical (freedom, democracy, fairness, etc.) are in fact hard to come by in nature.
Should some people choose to eat according to a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle, I am happy to leave them to their choice. I am just as happy when they leave me to my choice.
The problem is that this isn't just a matter of personal choice. Our consumption has a real, long-term effect on the environment. It is reasonable for vegetarians to advocate their case, since at least part of their argument is that we could reduce our environmental impact (an argument that affects all of us).
It's part of the price paid for the convenience of eating meat.
Indeed. Unfortunately not all omnivores are willing to concede that simple point. Too many think that they have some intrinsic right to eat meat, without acknowledging that it is a luxury that causes animal suffering and environmental damage.
I'm not trying to "judge" meat-eaters (heck, I am one), but I'm trying to keep the debate logical. Everyone in modern society has lots of luxuries that have associated impacts. We need to be aware of them so that we can make reasonable choices.
Re:FLOSS software? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a little unfair to use a few crazies to stand in for the whole animal rights movement.
I am not an animal rights activist, but it's hard to argue with the position that animal cruelty is a bad thing. It's a line drawing problem. Is raising chickens cruel? Is raising chickens who spend their whole lives in cages cruel? Is raising chickens in cages and cutting off their beaks cruel? Is tazing chickens repeatedly for the fun of it cruel?
Similarly there are solid public health reasons to oppose things like over use of antibiotics and introducing downed cattle into the food supply.
So while PETA may be an organization of crazies, the animal rights movement as a whole isn't.
Re:Not an Open Source license (Score:3, Insightful)
It's in part a combinatorial problem. Put a few clauses like that in active licenses, and you would have to analyze the licenses in active projects and chart out what you could, and could not do, and if there is a twilight as you propose - for how long and with whose potential permission.
While it might be acceptable to you for your particular cause, here and there, when you put all of the causes together the negative effect on the community in general is significant.