Can it be used as an addendum instead of root license?

[erlend-sh]

I’m wondering if there is any prior art for Hippocratic License being used in a similar fashion to the Commons Clause.

For use with open source licenses, HL would probably run into the same problem CC did, because it can come off as a misrepresentation of open source. That said, an ethics add-on might fare better than a business add-on.

If HL eventually gets approved by the OSI, I would still prefer to use a “MIT+Hippocratic” license combo rather than just HL, because the MIT license is so widely recognized and understood.

But what I’m really interested in is the prospect of HL as a add-on addendum to a Polyform license. The open source company I work for will eventually explore an open core strategy, applying the PolyForm NonCommercial license to some future code products that are almost exclusively useful in a commercial, at-scale context.

Since our PolyForm-NonCommercial code won’t be technically open source anyway, it shouldn’t be controversial for us to tack on the Hippocratic License to it.

[erlend-sh]

@kemitchell touches on this subject of addendums in his "Ethical Subcommons Starter Kit".

License Terms

Your community might choose to write its external code, internal code, or both, into the public license terms it applies to the software it creates.

For example, an ethical AI subcommons might choose to apply The Blue Oak Model License 1.0.0 with the following additional section:

Ethical AI

You must exercise your license only in accordance with the Tiger’s Eye Statement on Ethical AI published at https://example.com/tiger-eye.

Note that this differs from the approach of many software freedom activists. Their organizations, notably the Free Software Foundation, don’t reference external codes of conduct in license terms. Rather, they translate their ethical views into legal rules, in the vocabulary of copyright, patent, or both.

I do not encourage new communities to adopt that approach. The translation step from ethical language to legal language introduces confusion, errors, and costs. The community becomes unable to interpret or evolve its terms without legal intermediaries.

I'm not proposing to turn HL into an externalized clause. But I think it would be good for HL's adoption if it it existed in both forms:

• A stand-alone, all-encompassing license (as it currently stands)
• An official derivative of HL, designed to be inserted into existing licenses.

[kemitchell]

That's a way to do it, but probably not the best way. Name a Commons Clause-style license rider that's succeeded in establishing itself as a known standard?

I get why people want to ride on the name "MIT". But legally, it's not a good choice.

[erlend-sh]

I may indeed be needlessly attached to the familiarity of the MIT license.

Could you explain more exactly @kemitchell how the “Ethical AI” case you described in your post would work in practice?

Say I’m using the Blue Oak Model License 1.0.0 in my project, with that addition: Am I still calling it the Blue Oak Model license, or do I just have to make up a brand new name for it now, making it a completely custom license?

I’m also not clear on how what you’ve outlined in these hypothetical License Terms is different from what the Commons Clause did. To my untrained eye they look and behave the same: An add-on to an existing license.

Name a Commons Clause-style license rider that's succeeded in establishing itself as a known standard?

That hardly seems fair. The same could be said for any of your new and much needed licenses that are still in the very early stages of adoption.

---

(I hope EthicalSource is fine with me continuing this discussion here. It may not be directly about HL at this point, but I think we’re covering subject matter that is highly relevant to the EthicalSource mission.)

[elimisteve]

@erlend-sh Interesting post, as I want pretty much exactly the same thing: arbitrary base license + human rights requirement from the Hippocratic License + noncompete clause from Polyform.

"You can use this client code to do anything except violate human rights or compete against me with my own code, including inspecting the source code, modifying it, and distributing your customized version" is something I am excited to tell my users! (With the server being proprietary, though still with the Hippocratic requirement -- another example of combining Hippocratic with a different base license.)