Software freedom vs human freedom: A surge of activism is rocking open source developers, as programmers fight to stop their software from being used for 'evil'
- From GitHub employees protesting their company's contract with Immigration and Customs Enforcement to developers changing licenses to say their software can't be used for evil, there's a greater spotlight on activism in the open source community.
- The official open source definition prohibits discrimination, which means that anyone can use open source software however they please.
- Some activists are challenging this definition, saying the Open Source Initiative, or the body that approves open source licenses, represents the "old guard" of open source.
- Experts say that the open source definition is unlikely to change, but they say the best way to take a stand for issues they care about is through labor organizing.
- Click here for more BI Prime stories.
A wave of activism is flooding the open source community - that is, the community of developers who work on software that can be used, downloaded, or modified for free.
Increasingly, there's a greater spotlight on developers who are using software to protest issues they stand against, such as a company's work with Immigration and Customs Enforcement or breaking labor laws.
A few examples from this year: When a former employee found out that automation startup Chef has a contract with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, he protested by yanking some vital code that the project relied on - leading to several outages. The open source code editor Notepad++ released a version called "Free Uyghur," leading to online attacks from Chinese users. And earlier this month, activists showed up at the annual conference of GitHub - a hub for open source developers and projects - to protest the company's contract with ICE.
Some developers are even creating software licenses that dictate how the projects they build can be used - often specifying that they can't be used for evil. For example, Microsoft and GitHub employees banded together to create a new software license, saying companies that break labor laws cannot use software under that license. And last year, the popular open source project Lerna changed its license to ban companies that work with ICE from using its software - although this has been since reversed after an online backlash.
Still, as developers use software and licensing to protest, others say changing the terms of how software can be used goes against the very definition of open source itself.
"As a starting point, it's worth noting that open source and free software are inherently political already," Josh Simmons, vice president of the Open Source Initiative, told Business Insider. "They encode a certain perspective and a certain political view on intellectual property...We've seen people make efforts in this direction for a long time. We're just seeing more of that now."
The official definition of open source software prohibits discrimination - meaning that developers may use software however they want. As activists raise political issues, such as a company's involvement with ICE, some are questioning whether this definition is outdated or at least, what role politics should play in open source software. Others remain firm on the meaning of open source.
"Tech workers are taking a stand on the way technology will be used," Casey Fiesler, assistant information science professor at the University of Colorado, Boulder, told Business Insider. "I think it's interesting in open source in particular because they're often not structured around big companies where technologists aren't the ones making the decisions. I feel like the people who are contributing to the code could potentially have a larger voice than employee #10007 at Google."
'We have bigger enemies than Microsoft in 2019'
The Open Source Initiative is an organization made up of volunteers that gives the official stamp of approval on whether a software license is open source or not. For the OSI, software is open source if people are free to use it however they want.
But throughout the years, community members have suggested licenses to start a discussion on what happens if free software is used for "evil." Right now, the OSI community is discussing the Vaccine License, which says that users must be vaccinated, and it says that open source work should be for good, not evil.
"Open source has always had this tension where it's explicitly political because it's empowering developers but also explicitly apolitical because it doesn't care [whether] these developers work for the UN or the Department of Defense or ICE," Tidelift co-founder Luis Villa told Business Insider. "What we're seeing now is the result of that tension which for years has been quiet, and we're seeing it come to the forefront."
Similarly, earlier this year, developer and open source activist Coraline Ada Ehmke introduced the Hippocratic License, which prohibits people from using the software to harm others - for example, she says, a company that works with ICE may not use software under that license.
"We're seeing at every level and every aspect of the tech community, people wanting to take control and have a say in how their labor is being used," Ehmke said. "They don't want to support human rights violations. Companies are in it for the profit. They're standing in the way of people expressing ethical values."
When Ehmke introduced this license, the OSI responded that it's not an open source license and asked her to modify the language.
Ehmke still disagrees, saying that the OSI is "out of step" with how many developers feel about open source, which to her is more about community and collaboration. She says the open source definition, written in the 1990s, is outdated and that the OSI represents the "old guard" of open source.
"The greatest evil they were fighting against in 1998 was the marked dominance of Windows and Internet Explorer," Ehmke said. "We have bigger enemies than Microsoft in 2019."
And last year Daniel Stockman, who created the project Lerna, changed the license to disallow companies working with ICE to use that software. After a contributor wrote a long email advocating for that change, Stockman agreed he should make a stand. But when he changed the license, he faced online backlash for restricting how Lerna can be used.
"What I didn't do was talk to any lawyers," Stockman said. "I didn't talk to anyone with experience in open source licensing. For all the good intentions behind it, the ultimate impact was not what we had anticipated. Fundamentally in open source, you can't stop people from using your code."
Fortunately, he says, some people kindly reached out to discuss it with him, including lawyers. Stockman ended up reverting the license, saying that his biggest mistake was not involving the thoughts of the Lerna community.
"I'd say of all my sins, that was the worst one in what a maintainer can do," Stockman said. "The project doesn't exist without the community. It's vibrant because of the community. If we don't respect that, we lose something."
A 'practical point of view'
In general, experts say that the open source definition is unlikely to change - having a standard definition has beneficial legal and business implications as people are clear about how the software can be used. What's more, licenses with "no evil" clauses are difficult to enforce, and it won't necessarily change the behavior of people using the software, open source licensing lawyer Heather Meeker says.
"From a practical point of view, it's probably pretty difficult for people to approve the use of software under those licenses because then they would have to be constantly monitoring if they're adhering to those limitations," Meeker said.
Simmons says that when creating technology, developers make a bargain, as it's possible that it can be used for good or ill - and open source is no different.
Still, Ehmke says that even if a license can't be enforced, it's a way for developers to take an ethical stand.
"Even if no one listens to us, there's value in saying we don't want our software used in this way," Ehmke said. "Taking that away from us takes away our voice."
The 'I'm just an engineer' problem
Rather than changing licenses, Simmons says that tech workers can advocate for the issues they care about through labor organizing - the protests within GitHub and Microsoft over ICE contracts is one example of that.
"Rather than using licensing as a tool, we can use labor organizing so we have more collective power and coverage to encourage tech companies to be good corporate citizens," Simmons said. "We will see a lot of people from the open source movement who are justice minded become powerful forces in labor organizing as well."
Simmons also notes that the OSI is the work of the community that makes these projects possible, and he encourages people who feel strongly about these issues to get involved.
"While I feel frustrated with people questioning this hard earned community consensus that is codified through the Open Source Initiative, I also appreciate it, because to me the most important thing is that people care and are talking," Simmons said. "The OSI is not some self involved entity. We are you. We are the community."
Some observers are also encouraged that people are taking a stand on ethical issues, whether through employee organizing, through projects they build, or by having ethics officers and policies at companies.
"I think that it's a positive movement we're seeing in people bearing responsibility in how what they build is used in the world," Fiesler said. "I think that's something we should be doing more of. I think one of the biggest problems right now in terms of ethical responsibility in technology is the 'I'm just an engineer' problem, as in, 'I'm just an engineer who built the thing. It's not my job to think about the ethical and social implications of how someone might use it.'"
Ehmke still hasn't given up on the Hippocratic License. She's working with a lawyer to revise it, and already, the company WeTransfer, a Dropbox competitor, plans to use this license.
"We're going to see a schism in open source between the establishment which puts software freedom over human freedom and developers who want to express their values and have their values reflected in the way their software is going to be used," Ehmke said. "I think that fight is going to continue and shake the foundations of the open source establishment."
Got a tip? Contact this reporter via email at rmchan@businessinsider.com, Signal at 646.376.6106, Telegram at @rosaliechan, or Twitter DM at @rosaliechan17. (PR pitches by email only, please.) Other types of secure messaging available upon request. You can also contact Business Insider securely via SecureDrop.