Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

PETA Creates New Animal-Friendly Software License

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the no-animals-were-hurt-during-the-creation-of-this-story dept.

Software 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.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


FLOSS software? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32295576)

It is not free software. If you want to promote free software, you also have to make it available to parties or uses you might disagree with. Otherwise it is not free.

Re:FLOSS software? (5, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#32295674)

They seem to be aware of that:
"As great as we think this license is, it has a number of limitations and drawbacks: * It's incompatible with the Open Source Initiatives (OSI) definition of open-source software, since it does not comply with their 6th condition "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor". * It is not considered "free software" according to the Free Software Foundation (FSF), since it does not comply with their requirement "The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0)". * It adds to the problematic proliferation of software licenses in the open-source community. * It is not compatible with any version of GPL. This is a major drawback, since it prevents the combination of HPL and GPL licensed software. Read a good argument for why software should comply with GPL in the article "Make Your Open Source Software GPL-Compatible. Or Else.".

Re:FLOSS software? (-1, Troll)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 3 years ago | (#32295800)

The thing is; I like to eat meat. And pizza. And hamburgers. And hot dogs. And sausages. On a sunny day I love to grill some good beef and take a sip of my beer.

Besides, all plants are living things too. Why is it more right to eat them than the good old mmmmm grilled beef.

Re:FLOSS software? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32295872)

You definitely love gobbling down Steve Ballmer's sausage.

Re:FLOSS software? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32296058)

You definitely love gobbling down Steve Ballmer's sausage.

If Steve Ballmer's sausage were grilled to a crisp and slathered in mustard, I'd eat it right in front of him.

Re:FLOSS software? (4, Interesting)

Tiger4 (840741) | more than 3 years ago | (#32295880)

PETA is anti-free all on their own. By definition, they want to people to either voluntarily, or by restriction of law, to behave in their version of "Ethical" or face serious consequences. Most reasonable people oppose animal cruelty and torture. But PETA's definition and most everyone else's are far different things, as in No pets, No work animals, Veganism for all.

It is a silly, shabby, and soon to be ineffective ploy for attention whoring.

Re:FLOSS software? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32296268)

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:FLOSS software? (1)

xZgf6xHx2uhoAj9D (1160707) | more than 3 years ago | (#32296234)

Yup. Freedom 0 (to use the FSF's nomenclature), the freedom to use software for any use, should be absolute. That is what distinguishes a distribution licence (like the GPL) from an EULA. EULA's should be illegal, in my opinion. You should not have to accept a licence to use software that you obtained legally, a principle which is adhered to by every free software licence.

Insert PETA-VORE joke here (1)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 3 years ago | (#32295596)

What do PETA people call themselves? PETAPHILES?

Re:Insert PETA-VORE joke here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32295796)

My name is Peter File you insensitive clod!

Re:Insert PETA-VORE joke here (0, Flamebait)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#32295806)

What do PETA people call themselves

People for the Eating of Tasty Animals!

Some other favorites:

Meat is murder. Tasty, tasty murder.


For every animal you refuse to eat, I'm going to eat three.

Thats nice... (3, Insightful)

the_one_wesp (1785252) | more than 3 years ago | (#32295618)

But in order for it to matter, someone has to USE it.

Re:Thats nice... (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#32295724)

If they program a great software for sorting and handling animals in animal shelters, they've effectively made it that anyone who uses the software cannot euthanize animals. Not a bad move, though it could open a whole can of worms.

Re:Thats nice... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32295842)

Just don't harm the worms!

Re:Thats nice... (2, Funny)

madcatcasey (1729366) | more than 3 years ago | (#32295896)

This license may not be used for the opening of cans of worms, as it may harm the precious creatures during the opening phase.

Re:Thats nice... (2, Insightful)

RatBastard (949) | more than 3 years ago | (#32295980)

Too bad PETA routinely euthanizes animals by the thousands. They classify these poor animals as unadoptable.

Never mind unadoptable... (0, Troll)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 3 years ago | (#32296180)

... they routinely snatch people's pets from gardens and off the street and euthanise them. They also recommend that people mutilate their cats by ripping off the top joint of their toes (declawing) and damaging their teeth so that they can't hunt or eat solid food (dead rodents, for example). How ethical is it to stop a cat being a cat?

PETA want the complete elimination of all animals. Or at least, that's what it looks like.

Re:Thats nice... (3, Funny)

SydShamino (547793) | more than 3 years ago | (#32296230)

If they program a great software for sorting and handling animals in animal shelters, they've effectively made it that anyone who uses the software cannot euthanize animals. Not a bad move, though it could open a whole can of worms.

Fortunately PETA is rabidly against canning worms, so that problem will solve itself!

HPL + Sleepycat = expose abusers' code (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#32295730)

HPL is not a free software license. But one way to use it is as part of a multi-license to force downstream users to choose between not harming animals and not harming other developers. Dual-license your software under HPL (a pro-animal rights license based on BSD) and the Sleepycat License [opensource.org] (a copyleft license based on BSD), and the developers of products intended for causing bodily harm will have to free their changes to your code.

Re:Thats nice... (1)

Zumbs (1241138) | more than 3 years ago | (#32296258)

Well, I wouldn't want my work to be used to kill and maim someone, and I'm sure a lot of other people feel the same way. The licence may be a bit to restrictive for my tastes, as I have no objection to testing medicine on animals, but I wouldn't mind telling the military (of whatever nation) to go screw themselves. Naturally, that would assume that the military would honor the licence (and want to use something I wrote), but that is another story entirely.

I like PETA but.... (5, Interesting)

Improv (2467) | more than 3 years ago | (#32295626)

I don't think PETA should be wading into the waters of making a new license - the mess they make in doing so is not worth the negligible benefit for the cause of animal welfare they're trying to serve.

If we had a time machine and could hop back in time to make initial versions of the GPL involve a broader cultural conscience, *maybe* this kind of thing would be appropriate, but it's too late now and adding another license that's likely to be incompatible with the GPL means that this is the license equivalent of "straight to videocasette".

(needed disclaimer) (1)

Improv (2467) | more than 3 years ago | (#32295640)

I should note that I support PETA's goals and have nuanced/partial support for ALF/ELF, I just don't think this could possibly be effective.

Re:I like PETA but.... (1)

c++0xFF (1758032) | more than 3 years ago | (#32295666)

For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.

And another sig becomes eerily appropriate ...

Re:I like PETA but.... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#32295950)

I suspect that this action is one part "Hey, assuming you don't need strong legal assurance, writing a license is trivial" and one part "PETA likes publicity.

If PETA had devoted major resources to getting into software licensing, that would obviously be stupid. However, this seems to fairly clearly be the product of a single animal-rights enthusiast who just decided to write a quick mod of the standard BSD license. Probably took an afternoon, and was done on that individual's initiative. Once done, it is only logical, and fully in line with their past behavior, for PETA to use it as a publicity mechanism. "PETA releases software license" is enough in the "news of the weird/human interest/oddball filler" area, that it should get some play on a slow news day, and at virtually zero cost.

Whether the publicity will be of any broader use is another question; but it seems like a cheap source of such.

PETA is redundant, we have the SPCA (4, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#32295972)

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:PETA is redundant, we have the SPCA (2, Funny)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#32296142)

> 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?

Re:PETA is redundant, we have the SPCA (4, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#32296256)

> 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.

Thank you. I was a vegan for many years (4, Insightful)

aussersterne (212916) | more than 3 years ago | (#32296198)

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.

Must use free-range coders (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32295650)

You can no longer pen them in cages to achieve the desired marbling. This confines this license to small projects.

Does it really matter? (2, Insightful)

the_one_wesp (1785252) | more than 3 years ago | (#32295670)

Whether or not it's in the license, if PETA finds out that you're harming animals with ANYTHING they're gonna get all up on, and sue you anyway. So what difference does it really make if it's in a license or not?

Re:Does it really matter? (1)

c++0xFF (1758032) | more than 3 years ago | (#32295722)

It gives companies another way to show their support for animal rights. It may just be a token gesture, but it's there nonetheless.

Re:Does it really matter? (1)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 3 years ago | (#32295744)

which is really kinda ironic considering how many animals they put to death each year themselves.

Re:Does it really matter? (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#32295834)

Because euthanizing animals isn't a crime in most states. But if you break their license, well, that is a crime.

I'm with PETA on this one... (5, Funny)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | more than 3 years ago | (#32295678)

I refuse to use software that's been tested on animals.

I've seen video from hidden cameras of researchers stuffing javascript into bunnies eyes and ears. It's horrific.

Oh! Harmless (4, Funny)

Mikkeles (698461) | more than 3 years ago | (#32295700)

I misread that as hamless and thought it was a Moslem/Jewish licence!

Re:Oh! Harmless (1)

sammy baby (14909) | more than 3 years ago | (#32296366)

Interesting idea, but I'd really miss the bacon-double cheese software I've been enjoying recently. I'm such a bad Jew.

Not "free" (3, Insightful)

isilrion (814117) | more than 3 years ago | (#32295712)

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' (5, Interesting)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 3 years ago | (#32295716)

I'm reminded of Asimov's 0th law of robotics, "A robot may not harm humanity or through inaction allow humanity to come to harm". Hunting deer, for instance, certainly harms the deer that are killed but in many areas the natural predators have been all but wiped out and not hunting would lead to massive overpopulation. Eventually causing much more harm to both the animals not being hunted and to the ecosystem in general.

So, what is 'harm'? Is a nuclear power plant harmful to humans or animals? Is a prison harmful to humans or helpful? How about a nuclear power plant? How about a video game that depicts the harming of humans or animals?

Re:Define 'Harm' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32295820)

There might be areas where "not hunting" leads to over-population and harm, but usually that is just an excuse of hunters.

With deers in Europe that is for example simply false. There feeding the deers in winter causes overpopulation. And the hunting causes the deers to need more food so they destroy young trees without feeding.

Re:Define 'Harm' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32296144)

"but usually that is just an excuse of hunters" ... what? why would hunters make excuses for why they are hunting. I don't see a hunter caring what PETA or anybody else thinks about what they are doing.

Oh and overpopulation of hogs is a huge problem here in Texas.

Re:Define 'Harm' (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#32296224)

It's simple math really...

Either predation is going to limit their numbers or starvation. If you let them breed to starvation in the absence of any predators (since Europeans already killed those off) you might end up with long term environmental damage besides just the slow painful death due to starvation.

It all boils down to what excuses you can tell yourself and how much misery you're willing to tolerate.

Humans are great at making excuses for inaction.

Re:Define 'Harm' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32296064)

So, what is 'harm'?

It's whatever PETA chooses to define it as - at that moment.

PETA has gone the way of Greenpeace; they had a good message, but have gone so far up their own asses they just don't make sense any more.

Re:Define 'Harm' (1)

Tiger4 (840741) | more than 3 years ago | (#32296152)

By the way, what's with the distinction between human and animal? Hearts (or pumping organ), blood (or some kind of circulating fluid), bodies (or protoplasm) we're all just members of the same kingdom, right?

The Protists, Plants, and Fungi can get stuffed, but we Animals all hang together!

Re:Define 'Harm' (1)

SydShamino (547793) | more than 3 years ago | (#32296396)

Sapience. If you are sentient you get all the rights of any free person.

The next level to me is the ability to feel pain. If a species can feel pain, we shouldn't necessarily and cruelly afflict it. That doesn't mean I won't breed or euthanize (mmm steak), but I want it done "humanely" (whatever that means).

Below that it's all a blur. I don't think insects or crustaceans able to feel pain, so I treat them just like I do plants - killable when I feel like it. (Not that I don't get upset if a plant I've cultivated dies, but that's because I've investing time in it.)

Re:Define 'Harm' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32296326)

Is a nuclear power plant harmful... How about a nuclear power plant?

Perhaps, but have you considered a nuclear power plant?

Define "harm" and "animal" (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32295720)

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?

Don't make me laugh (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 3 years ago | (#32295734)

Sticking this license on your code won't get you laid.

Re:Don't make me laugh (1)

selven (1556643) | more than 3 years ago | (#32295996)

Are you suggesting that there are licenses that do achieve this purpose?

Re:Don't make me laugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32296068)

Yes of course.
it goes along these lines:
You're only allowed to use this software provided you send a 10-cent whore to the following address

ps. posting anon, because my wife reads slashdot too.
pps. my captcha was "textile" which is not very related to any of this.

Um, no. (1)

Millennium (2451) | more than 3 years ago | (#32295762)

It's not free software if you can only use it for some things (for which reason labeling this license ('permissive' is an absolute joke). Open-Source I'll grant, but please don't lump it in with the FLOSS acronym.

It's also not particularly unique. Extending the 'no-harm' clause of the license to animals is an interesting novelty, but such clauses are not at all unprecedented.

It's not as though it's a serious attempt to influence software development anyway -few PETA things are ever anything more than publicity stunts, and this is no different- so why isn't this in Idle?

Makes sense in one way... (3, Interesting)

RyanFenton (230700) | more than 3 years ago | (#32295782)

If you're going to use the rights granted under the license, you then must grant those same rights to others. Unfortunately, this license does not grant the right to be free from harm - so it doesn't make sense to address causing or not causing harm as a responsibility.

Still, it's a contract, and you can say pretty much whatever you want in a contract - the real goal would seem to be to make it expensive for people to disagree with PETA's stances (whatever they happen to be at the moment), which tends to be the real goal of most contracts.

Ryan Fenton

Re:Makes sense in one way... (1)

Arker (91948) | more than 3 years ago | (#32295918)

NO. A license is NOT a contract. A contract is (at least) two-sided, created by agreement between the parties, "party A does Z and in return party B will do X." A license is one-sided, take it or leave it, "party A grants permission for X under Y conditions."

I know reading is hard but... (1)

Minwee (522556) | more than 3 years ago | (#32295822)

6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor [opensource.org]

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.

Since it violates one of the key elements of the definition of Open Source this is not an Open Source license, and clearly _not_ a Free/Libre Open Source Software license.

I think it may even violate Wheaton's First Rule [typepad.com], the one about being a dick, but I can't prove that empirically.

What, no PETA members sacrifice? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32295826)

I would of been more impressed if the license allowed for PETA members to be sacrificed in the stead of animals. But, alas they pre-empted that in the license

  . . .to be used for harming humans. . .

Sooo.... (1)

Trelane (16124) | more than 3 years ago | (#32295836)

The animals are to be protected, but the end-user humans are SoL? *and* it's known by its developers to be GPL-incompatible? (http://www.peta.org/hpl.htm#pro_con) Guess I can see their priorities.

You mean *this* PETA? (5, Insightful)

Infernal Device (865066) | more than 3 years ago | (#32295848)

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.

They are very much like Scientology, (3, Interesting)

aussersterne (212916) | more than 3 years ago | (#32296356)

more a kooky religion than anything else. In the mid 2000's I ended up being closely associated for career reasons with several people inside PETA, a couple of coordinators and some field workers, and had a chance to lunch with them a few times.

Their "ethical" position as we talked was that all pets must die and pet ownership ended, because it is inherently a form of suffering to lead the "unnatural" life of a pet. Furthermore, they carried this largely to humans; they made snide comments about people around us with children and often linked having children to the creation of suffering, since to live is to suffer (and therefore to create a human is to cause them suffering). They agreed that they could never take part in such an unethical thing.

Anytime you get into "all of humanity ought to die out because all humans do is suffer; oh, how glorious a world without humans and thus human suffering would finally be," you're deeply into cult territory, which matches up well with PETA's tendency to impose pressure on employees to end contact with intentionally non-vegan/non-vegetarian friends and family members.

Man, the courts are going to have a time with this (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#32295870)

Bringing "do no harm" into a software licence will(assuming anything other than toy software every gets thus licensed) really give the courts some exercise.

Ethics has, more or less since its inception, been tying itself in knots with ever subtler and more clever hypothetical conundra concerning harm, what it is, whether one can inflict lesser harm to avert greater, etc. Even better, to know whether you are "harming" something, you pretty much have to have decided what that something's interests are.

Obviously, using HPL-licensed firmware in my PuppyGrinder-3000 is probably not going to fly. What about using it in my WolfBot: Aibo's revenge deer population control device? Some direct harm is done; but nasty disease/starvation population crashes are averted. Anybody who has made it through PHIL-101 should be able to think of numerous similar examples.

Also potentially amusing, this is perhaps the only software license I know(other than perhaps the not-publicly-disclosed ones regarding DRM system robustness), where a software bug could put you in violation of the license. A radiotherapy machine would be compliant, a radiotherapy machine with a slight but troublesome bug in the dosing algorithm wouldn't be.

Compare to AGPL (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#32295988)

Also potentially amusing, this is perhaps the only software license I know(other than perhaps the not-publicly-disclosed ones regarding DRM system robustness), where a software bug could put you in violation of the license.

Read the license. It mentions intent to cause bodily harm. A clearer example of bug == violation is AGPL section 13 [gnu.org], which puts you in violation if you break "view source".

Don't use if you want to let others reuse your cod (2, Insightful)

mrnobo1024 (464702) | more than 3 years ago | (#32295886)

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.

Re:Don't use if you want to let others reuse your (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32296006)

I don't think PETA wants you using cod in the first place.

This is a prime example of fanatical behavior (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32295890)

If even 1/2 of the effort put into nonsense like this, was put into actual you know "things that make sense" rather than utterly useless jr high level pranks/idiotic ideas like this.. then the organizations would have signficantly better chance of being taken seriously rather than dismissed out of hand. Nevermind the impracticality of the license being enforced .. omg is using a perl script that has the harmless clause, we got them now! Quick sue them! This comes from the mindset that "all publicity is good publicity" which is sadly not the case when trying to change/modify/insert opinions on a subject. For every lunatic that thinks that seeing someone splashed with paint because they are wearing fur/leather, its entirely likely that 80% or more think to themselves "those crazy PETA nuts are at it again".. Its entirely useless unless their goal is to simply get everyone to associate their organization with fringe/crazy behavior which they have been rather successful at. It takes more than saying "doing it this way is wrong" to change opinions and behavior, you have to present alternatives and educate on the why, A good example being militant open source or nothing vs "open source is appropriate in many cases and here is why/how"

I think I speak for most of the class when I say.. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32295900)

... Fuck PETA. Fuck them right up their stupid terrorism-supporting asses. Until that vile cunt ringleader who is dependent on animal-derived insulin gives it up and just accepts the fact the she was born defective and the natural pecking order has singled her out for death, then they can all just eat me. If all animals are equal to us, then she can just suck it up and die.

It's all in the interpretation (2, Insightful)

RichMan (8097) | more than 3 years ago | (#32296010)

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... (1, Insightful)

the_raptor (652941) | more than 3 years ago | (#32296026)

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.

Re:PETA is to animals... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32296308)

> Hitler "liberated" a few million Jews from their "suffering",

I don't dispute that the holocaust happened, and that slave labour was used, and so on, but I do not believe Hitler used any pretext of "suffering" to liquidate Jews.

PeTA, many animals eat animals (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32296100)

Not strictly on topic but I wanted to address any retarded PeTA members who may be reading this thread.

Hey morons,

Animals often eat animals. Try putting a cat on a vegan diet sometime and see what happens.

Some people can't survive, at least not without health issues, on a vegan diet. Some are allergic to vegetable proteins, others need a higher-than-usual cholesterol intake, and some people's bodies can't synthesize some essential amino acids so those people need to eat other animals to remain healthy.

When you get cats and predatory birds to stop eating meat, fish to stop eating fish, reptiles to stop eating meat, all animals ranging from the largest carnivorous or omnivorous seat mammals to the smallest of viruses and bacteria, I'll agree with your position that eating animals is "cruel."

Until then, I will still shove dismembered cows, sheep, bison, deer, chickens, turkeys, rabbit, ostrich, goats, and many other land, air and sea animals down my pie hole. First of all, animals are yummy, and second of all, I tried the vegan diet (Not out of political or misguided philosophical motivations, but because I believed the hype and that eliminating animal products would solve some health problems. It almost killed me because the problem which had escaped diagnosis became much worse. I have since gone on a high-cholesterol, mostly meat diet and the symptoms disappeared. A vegan diet just can't work for me, because I need a high cholesterol intake, am very intolerant of and slightly allergic to soy proteins. There are no plant sources for cholesterol, and my body doesn't synthesize enough so I need to eat animals.

In summary, PeTA, you assholes are a bunch of idiots.

Must not use it to track the animals they take in (1)

WillAdams (45638) | more than 3 years ago | (#32296108)

Given the number of them which are euthanized:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/134549 [newsweek.com]

To see their hypocrisy, look at the statements made by their lawyers in the trial of PETA employees, or by their president, "We are not in the home finding business, although it is certainly true that we do find homes from time to time for the kind of animals people are looking for. Our service is to provide a peaceful and painless death to animals who no one wants."
-- Ingrid Newkirk, PeTA President, The Virginian-Pilot, July 20, 2005

PETA is helping animals around the world. (0, Troll)

pinklogo (1816918) | more than 3 years ago | (#32296120)

I support anything that helps animals -- and that is what PETA is doing.

Re:PETA is helping animals around the world. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32296334)

Pollyanna much?

People Eating Tasty Animals! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32296140)

The original founder of PETA has distanced herself from the group because it took a radical life of its own, something she didn't envision or want.


Slipped_Disk (532132) | more than 3 years ago | (#32296178)

... Because what we really need is another damn open source license. I was just thinking to myself the other day, I said "Self, what the world needs is just ONE MORE open source license. That would just make everything SO MUCH BETTER!"

And why only Chordata? It's not OK to kill cows, dogs, land-fish or sea-kittens, but killing arachnids (scorpions, spiders) or crustaceans (crabs, lobsters) is OK? Is it because they're not cute?


Harm-Required License (4, Funny)

topham (32406) | more than 3 years ago | (#32296194)

This license is a permissive license, similar to the BSD license; however it requires at least one animal sacrifice when software is distributed. Note: 1 human sacrifice can be used to create a pool of 10 animal sacrifices. This reduces the amount of cleanup required.

No Open Source bunny killing robot :( (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32296206)

at least, not with this OS...

Attention whores (4, Insightful)

jDeepbeep (913892) | more than 3 years ago | (#32296248)

I've been vegetarian nearly my entire life and vegan for several years, and I have to say that PETA annoys me to no end. One attention seeking stunt after another, and might I add, several that make animal-rights advocates look downright petty. This looks like yet another stunt by them, trying to stay relevant, and get as much exposure as possible. I often interact with people who assume I like what PETA does, but I should say here that I am far from alone, as an animal rights advocate, and as a vegan, when I express my dislike of their tactics. But beyond attention-whoring tactics, they are also intensely hypocritical (google for PETA stockholders Tyson foods). I hope they die soon.

Here in Alaska (1)

AnAdventurer (1548515) | more than 3 years ago | (#32296272)

1) PETA does not come to Alaska (though they moan about our dog races)

2) Vegetarian is Alaskan for "bad hunter"

PETA is so unbelievably biased. (1)

sl3xd (111641) | more than 3 years ago | (#32296318)

I'm from a species classified as an animal. Part of being an animal is we eat other living things - or living things that were recently alive...

I eat other life forms. I don't have an irrational bias that eliminates entire classes of food energy. As a sensitive, enlightened, 21st century animal, I choose not to let prejudices decide what living things I eat. If it will keep my body going, I'll consume it as a chemical energy source. If it has cells, I'll eat it. I don't care what its metabolism is. I don't care if it's a solar vampire that draws its energy from the sun. If the need arises, I'll even eat my own species.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account