Within the CCI, we encourage students to contribute to and participate in Open-Source Software (OSS) development. An important ethical concern within OSS is the use of licensing (conditions that determine how software may be used), and its intersection with personal belief.
Licensing choices can have many consequences for the way that software is used in the world. A famous example is the shift in the early 2000s from copyleft licensing (which requires people re-using the software to fully open-source their software) to permissive licensing (which allows people re-using software to do whatever they like with it) leading to pervasive adoption of open-source tools by corporations who wanted to keep their own code closed-source (Asparouhova, 2020).
Another consequence of permissive licensing is that software developed for one purpose can be used for a totally different one, potentially morally at odds with the ideals of the original developers. For example, border cameras developed by American defense company Anduril make use of computer vision datasets originally created for civilian use (Levy, 2018), and open-source drone software developed by racing enthusiasts has been used extensively by both sides in Russia’s war on Ukraine (Kühn, 2022).
I am personally a committed pacifist, and a quaker. A core tenet of quakerism is to live “in the virtue of that life and power that takes away the occasion of all wars” (Fox, 1651). As a technologist, this means that I decline to work on any projects in receipt of military funding, or that may be used in a military context. In recent years, I have found this belief more challenging to accommodate, as the line between military and civilian technologies has become substantially blurred through the use of machine learning systems.
While I do not express my personal beliefs directly in my teaching practice, these experiences mean I am committed to helping students of diverse beliefs and faiths to uphold their values in relation to their work. I am often engaged in conversations with students about the politics of ‘dual use’ technology such as LLMs, and tensions within OSS around military and corporate usage (Kühn, 2022).
Intersecting identities can raise the stakes of such discussions — for example, muslim students objecting to the use of a surveillant technology on the basis of their faith might both be disproportionately targeted by that same technology, and be more likely than myself to experience epistemic injustice in response to their objection (Rekis, 2023). I also find it important not to be didactic: people enact their beliefs in different ways, and financial concerns, family commitments and visa restrictions can create additional challenges for students attempting to reconcile a career in tech with their values.
When discussing OSS specifically, ethical software licensing projects offer an opportunity to consider the enactment of belief within a technical context. Two significant examples are the Hippocratic License, which prohibits use in contexts that infringe on human rights (OECA, n.d.), and the Anticapitalist Software License, which prohibits use under conditions where labour is exploited for profit (Nasser and Pipkin, n.d.).
While the enforcement of software licenses in the current legal climate may be difficult, it is not impossible, as two recent cases upholding copyleft licenses have demonstrated (Aldama, 2025). I believe that sincere engagement with these ethical questions in technology — even when no easy solutions are apparent — is an essential part of students’ development of their own attitudes and values within their work. Moreover, an assurance to students that there is a means to uphold their beliefs may be essential for inclusion in courses (such as BSc Creative Computing) where contribution to OSS is a required learning outcome.
References
Aldama, J. (2025), Open Source License Compliance Lessons from Two Landmark Court Cases, FossID Blog, available at: https://fossid.com/articles/open-source-license-compliance-lessons-from-two-landmark-court-cases/, accessed 09/05/2026
Asparouhova, N. (2020), Working in public: the making and maintenance of open source software, Stripe Press
Fox, G. (1651), Quaker Peace Testimony, via Quaker faith & practice: The book of Christian discipline of the Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) in Britain (2013), 5th edn. London: Quakers in Britain, 24.08.
Kühn, B.M, (2022), Copyleft Won’t Solve All Problems, Just Some of Them, Software Freedom Conservacy Blog, available at: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2022/mar/17/copyleft-ethical-source-putin-ukraine/, accessed 09/05/2026
Levy, S. (2018), Inside Palmer Luckey’s Bid to Build a Border Wall, Wired Magazine, available at: https://web.archive.org/web/20210414015255/https://www.wired.com/story/palmer-luckey-anduril-border-wall/, accessed 09/05/2026
Nasser, R. and Pipkin, E. (no date) The Anti-Capitalist Software License (v 1.4). Available at: https://anticapitalist.software/ (Accessed: 9 May 2026).
Organization for Ethical Source and Corporate Accountability Lab (no date), The Hippocratic License 3.0: An ethical license for open source communities. available at: https://firstdonoharm.dev/, accessed 09/05/2026
Rekis, J., (2023), Religious identity and epistemic injustice: An intersectional account, Hypatia, 38(4), pp.779-800
Agnes this has blown my mind! I found your discussion of open-source software licensing and belief systems really thought-provoking, particularly the way you connect ethics, faith, and technology. Your reflections highlight how technical decisions are never entirely neutral and can carry significant social and political consequences. I was especially interested in your discussion of “dual use” technologies and how students may struggle to reconcile personal values with industry expectations or employability pressures.
Your point about intersecting identities was also important, particularly in relation to Muslim students and epistemic injustice. It clearly demonstrates how ethical concerns can become intensified for those already marginalised within wider social and political systems. I also appreciated your emphasis on creating space for students to explore these tensions without imposing a single moral framework.
Do you think ethical licensing models such as the Hippocratic License could realistically become more widely adopted within the technology industry?
Thanks Greg 🙂 It’s a really interesting (and tricky!) question. The Kühn article (https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2022/mar/17/copyleft-ethical-source-putin-ukraine/) has a really interesting discussion of this — essentially, his point is that currently the more niche ethical licenses (like the Hippocratic license) are less likely to be effectively enforced than “single issue” software licenses like the GPL, and makes a case that ethical use of software should be enforced at the level of law rather than licenses (similar to buying a car, where your ethical use of that technology is regulated by the law, not by agreement with the person who sold it to you). I feel mixed about this but I think I probably agree on a pragmatic level that cultural changes require broad coalition of people working across tech and law to take seriously how their work is used.
I think the industry is currently at something of a crossroads — in many countries (UK US EU for sure) tech companies are currently investing massively in defence, and the spread of AI tools means that software engineers have considerably less autonomy and bargaining power as individuals. There’s also a burgeoning tech union movement (Google Deepmind workers, for example, just voted to unionise) who are pushing back against companies making weapons, and I do think the discussion has changed a lot from where it was a few years ago, with strikes and protests by employees at companies like Microsoft and Google over their work with different militaries.
I agree with Greg that this is a fascinating piece of writing and it has made me see software licensing from a completely different angle. Connecting such a technical subject to ethics and personal beliefs did not seem like an obvious choice, but how you have explained it with concrete examples made me really understand the issues at hand.
I also strongly agree with your conclusion that “assurance to students that there is a means to uphold their beliefs may be essential for inclusion in courses”. Reflecting on my own course, I think this is something that could be emphasised more. Upholding your personal beliefs as a student, particularly when they fall outside the norm, is rarely the easiest path. Because of that, having affirmation and institutional support is incredibly important.
As a Quaker, do you find that you often need to make adjustments in your work at UAL, particularly given the dual or multiple nature of open-source software?
Thanks Daphne! Yeah, I agree — I think it’s easy to underestimate how stressful it can be for someone to express their views in an environment they imagine to be hostile, and that it is a site of active work to create spaces where students are able to express objections!
I haven’t had to make adjustments to my work at UAL, though part of the reason I chose to work in an art school was to reduce the chances that I will be obliged to undertake work that will be used in a military context. I have friends in equivalent roles in engineering departments at other universities who are regularly contracted to work on military research projects. Similarly, the optics research group where I completed my undergraduate dissertation now has a partnership with BAE Systems. In my freelance work, I’ve turned down projects due to military funding sources, or companies that work in defence.