Open Vs Closed Source

[ninalong]

The tools we chose for digital mapping included geojsons and Open Street Maps, open standard and open data, respectively. As we use mapping tools to empower in civil society, this open source technology is affordable (free) and accessible, giving all people (theoretically) the opportunity to use this software. While these aspects are generally positive, open source tools should not be considered an automatic good or perhaps even neutral; with open source comes great power to do harm. While closed source tools have benefits, including improved UI/UX (an important factor on the other side of the coin, user accessibility), they entail costs for both coder and user.
The cons of open and closed source tools entail the necessity of ethical source licensing, which seeks to make accessible software that commits itself to doing no harm. But even with so-called ethical source licensing, who decides what is "ethical"? The Organization for Ethical Source's principles provide guidelines for ethical behavior, such as "Our work respects accessibility as a human right," and "Our work prioritizes the safety of people." OES states, "We measure success in adhering to these principles through our impact rather than our intentions." Inevitably, disagreements will occur over potential harmful impacts, intended or unintended. In such issues, how are ethics adjudicated?