> Restricting software use to only people approved by the creators is a terrible idea.
Everyone is free to use the software. If a project is found to be in violation of the Code of Conduct (e.g. discriminating against marginalized communities, manipulating public opinion, automating weapons) than the community developing the software takes steps to remedy the problem with the reported violator, or the project falls out of compliance with the license.
I agree with your hesitance and apprehension of how it could could go wrong. There is significant responsibility in interpretation and governance, presumably (though in some cases, it could be pretty clear — like with weapons.). And in cases with consequences related to violence and weapons and oppression, it also seems like a step in the right direction.
In the context of some software, this may not fit or be useful. In other libraries, it could also be incredibly important and impactful.
It also requires stepping out of our innocence. It requires accepting responsibility for interpretation, decision-making, and governance — and that sometimes, some of our decisions may not be right. Sometimes, we have to make decisions even when the answers aren't clear. This is part of our personal lives, being in families, being in communities, being in companies. It's just decision-making at the end of the day — call it what you want (e.g. governance, licensing, restricting). Why shouldn't that kind of decisionmaking and responsibility be part of software and the communities building software — especially given its growing impact on the world around us?
> Society has to operate with some level of trust that even people we disagree with
This is well said. I would just note that ml5.js's approach leaves room for disagreement, and a pathway to hear and understand and reconcile disagreement, before any action is taken. The devil is in implementation — though it does seem wise, and the community has likely thought through and accounted for more of the problems than we have. They probably had discussions just like this, actually, with perspectives just like ours.
The rest of your reply disagrees with your first sentence. It seems that only the people who share ml5.js values are allowed to use the software. There's no problem with that, but they should be clear about it. They should also state clearly that ml5.js is not free or open source software, as its license violates the first principle of Free Software:
> The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
And the similar principle in the OSI definition of Open Source
> No discrimination against fields of endeavor: The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
> The rest of your reply disagrees with your first sentence. It seems that only the people who share ml5.js values are allowed to use the software.
Any can use the software only for purposes in line with ml5.js values.
So everyone is free to use the software, just not for all the purposes that any particular person might choose. It's something like a bar with a "no racist language" sign: anyone can use the bar, they just have to abide by the rules, and if they chose not to, they can find another bar.
The things that people can do inside a bar are sufficiently limited that they will not normally impinge on their beliefs, so a good comparison is hard. It would be something like "you are not permitted to use this bar for the purpose of buying a drink to relax after a hard day developing nuclear weapons." This would be a pretty terrible thing for a bar to do and I would easily condemn it, even though it is merely "the rules".
That's bullshit and you must know it. If, say, Donald Trump were to use the software to save puppies, the steering committee would find a reason that this is actually worse than Hitler.
Hitler literally saved puppies. He was a forerunner of animal rights. I don't know about the relationship between Trump and puppies but real people are more nuanced than a D&D alignment chart, and even despicable people can do good.
If I interpret all this correctly. What if the project was bought out by the kind of people who run patent-troll companies? Suddenly your retroactive license that can at any point be invalid based on someone's opinion of wrong is a giant liability. I'd struggle to recommend such a risk.
> I agree with your hesitance and apprehension of how it could could go wrong.
There are 2 issues:
1. the CoC is a "living document" which is Silicon valley speak for "we're making it up as we go along" (see also HTML5). It can change at any time.
2. The membership of the Steering Committee can change over time (and they can also change the CoC). What if in 5-10 years time I have built a successful business on this software, and the SC is taken over by employees of a rival company that then denies me use of it. As far as I can tell, I am shafted with no recourse.
For this reason I would never use any software licensed like this to do anything serious, nor would I contribute to any software licensed like this.
If mastodon had this in the code of conduct they’d not be able to use their own software haha. They banned Gab and arguably Trump has a marginalized base and as far as I’m aware never advocated for violence (if you believe the contrary, note that trump could have been arrested but hasn’t)
Some of Trump's base is marginalized on one intersection or another, but they support ideologies and an ideologue that are not marginalized by any defensible definition.
Everyone is free to use the software. If a project is found to be in violation of the Code of Conduct (e.g. discriminating against marginalized communities, manipulating public opinion, automating weapons) than the community developing the software takes steps to remedy the problem with the reported violator, or the project falls out of compliance with the license.
I agree with your hesitance and apprehension of how it could could go wrong. There is significant responsibility in interpretation and governance, presumably (though in some cases, it could be pretty clear — like with weapons.). And in cases with consequences related to violence and weapons and oppression, it also seems like a step in the right direction.
In the context of some software, this may not fit or be useful. In other libraries, it could also be incredibly important and impactful.
It also requires stepping out of our innocence. It requires accepting responsibility for interpretation, decision-making, and governance — and that sometimes, some of our decisions may not be right. Sometimes, we have to make decisions even when the answers aren't clear. This is part of our personal lives, being in families, being in communities, being in companies. It's just decision-making at the end of the day — call it what you want (e.g. governance, licensing, restricting). Why shouldn't that kind of decisionmaking and responsibility be part of software and the communities building software — especially given its growing impact on the world around us?
> Society has to operate with some level of trust that even people we disagree with
This is well said. I would just note that ml5.js's approach leaves room for disagreement, and a pathway to hear and understand and reconcile disagreement, before any action is taken. The devil is in implementation — though it does seem wise, and the community has likely thought through and accounted for more of the problems than we have. They probably had discussions just like this, actually, with perspectives just like ours.