Open-source software has changed the way we use technology. It has given people the freedom to use, modify, and share software without worrying about high costs or legal trouble. Open-source licenses, such as the GPL, serve as the legal foundation that defines how individuals and companies can use the software. Over the past few weeks, I have consulted with multiple open-source startups on whether their licenses should include rules regarding political beliefs or actions. One of the organizations was concerned about US Immigration and Customs Enforcement using their software. Another wanted to exclude any aggressor in a war.
At first, this might seem like a good idea to help make the world a better place. Yet, upon closer examination, we see that mixing politics with open-source licenses can cause more problems than it solves. Thus, let us explore why I counseled the organizations against inventing a new license while upholding their beliefs.
Why Companies Need Positions On Political Issues?
In today’s world, companies must take a stand on important political and social issues. Climate change, human rights, and privacy impact most organizations. Thus, companies must adopt sustainable business practices, and support causes that are crucial to their success. Beyond mere survival, a strong stance grounded in the corporate vision can help them connect with customers who share the same values. It can also help them attract employees who want to work for a company that shares their values.
However, there is a big difference between a company taking a stand and the rules that control how users utilize their software. When a company speaks out on an issue, it is choosing its actions and explaining its vision of a better future. The software license, however, is a legal document that controls the organization, its users, and, in the case of open-source software, all other contributors.
The Problems of Overly Complex Open-Source Licenses
One of the main reasons open-source software has been so successful is because the licenses are usually universal, simple, and easy to understand. The rules are clear: you can use the software, change it, and share it as long as you follow a few basic conditions. This simplicity enables people and companies to use open-source software without worrying about violating the rules.
If we start adding political requirements to licenses, they will become much more complicated. Imagine a license that says, “You can use this software only if you support a certain political cause.” Now, every company or person who wants to use the software must demonstrate their support for that cause. The demonstration might include filling out forms, making public statements, or even going to court to prove their beliefs. It would make open-source software much more difficult to use, and many people would likely give up.
Complex licenses also make it more difficult for lawyers and judges to understand what is permitted. If the rules are unclear, people may be hesitant to use the software at all. Confusing licenses would harm the open-source community and hinder innovation. The beauty of open-source licenses is that they are transparent and fair. Adding politics to the mix would only complicate things.
Why Politics in Licenses Might Be Misunderstood
Beyond the complexity of the license, the use of political language adds another layer of complication to the mix. It requires us to speak a common language. Let’s take the phrase: “You may not use this software to foster military aggression.” From our point in the West, it is clear that this would exclude anyone supporting the Russian attack on Ukraine. Yet, if Russian propaganda has blinded you, you might genuinely believe that the license excludes Ukraine and all that support her. Unfortunately, in our world of conflict, there are thousands of disputes that are far more difficult and complex to untangle.
Dealing with these issues is complex for diplomats and politicians. The average software user already all but ignores a software’s terms and conditions. They are even less likely to delve deeply into the political opinions of the software’s creators. Consequently, they will likely avoid using any software with a complicated license. Preventing people from using open-source software, in turn, contradicts the fundamental principle of making technology accessible to everyone.
Further, political situations can change quickly. A rule that makes sense today might not make sense tomorrow. If licenses are tied to political beliefs, they become outdated or even dangerous as the world changes.
Enforcing Open-Source Licenses
Lastly, courts of the respective countries are enforcing licenses. Thus, when we mix politics into the license to exclude state actors from using our software, we need the courts instituted by the same states to agree to our interpretation.
Sanctions against Russia following its attack on Ukraine provide an interesting case study. Among the sanctioned items are computer software, including operating systems and games. Thus, most proprietary software, including Microsoft Windows, has become difficult to obtain legally. Consequently, Russia has made it all but impossible to enforce software ownership and licenses within its borders. They made software piracy legal.
While most countries don’t have to go this far, declaring political license provisions void is a real possibility. This risk is especially true when the provisions are built upon loaded terms such as terror or fascist.
Keep It Simple And Open
Our world is becoming increasingly complex, yet we are making no progress in resolving our conflicts. Thus, the desire to opt out of being part of the machine and speak out against injustice is both understandable and laudable. Yet, we have to weigh it against the practicality and the purpose of open-source licenses.
Putting political restrictions on the license might feel good. Yet, it comes with the risk of driving away users and contributors. Thus, if we start picking and choosing who can use the software based on politics, we lose the spirit of openness and sharing. Ultimately, we might split our community without any tangible results.
Today, Open-source software continues to make the world a better place by giving people the freedom to use, change, and share technology. Instead of trying to control people through the license file, we should remind people that the ‘Free’ in ‘Free Software’ stands for Freedom. A Freedom that should include being free from physical and digital oppression.
