Open source project adds no military use clause to the GPL

[Gadren]

http://digg.com/linux_unix/Open_source_project_adds_no_military_use_clause_to _the_GPL

What irks me the most is the hypocrisy of the members of the FSF and OSI who, while they officially "object" to this, are willing to look the other way just because it's their own views. The quotes in that Sourceforge story show that they're carefully walking around the issue by supporting their pacifist goals while not touching much on their methods.

If you want to forbid the military from using your program, go ahead, but don't expect it to be considered open source. This kind of attitude of "we know better than the user what the user should use this program for" is what irked Stallman to the point of starting this whole free software thing. Why can they not see it?

[23meg]

It's a gray area really. Very very gray.

[nalmeth]

Interesting... Particularily the reference to the 3 laws of robotics..

Don't know quite how to feel, but at first, I think this is kind of dumb.. I remember a quote from Bruce Perens, something along these lines, probably not very close though:
"We can't stop an abortion clinic from using the software"

Would the author's consider this the same arena as military use? What is the total scope of the statement they've made? How will they try to enforce it?

[prizrak]

One of the freedoms of GPL states the the user should be able to run the program in any way he/she sees fit. The "no-military" clause in this license pretty much breaks the GPL. If they want to make their own license that's fine it is their right, unless they used GPL'ed code, but they cannot call it the GPL.

[23meg]

One of the freedoms of GPL states the the user should be able to run the program in any way he/she sees fit. The "no-military" clause in this license pretty much breaks the GPL. If they want to make their own license that's fine it is their right, unless they used GPL'ed code, but they cannot call it the GPL.
They call it "a modified GPL". Here (http://gpu.sourceforge.net/GPL_license_modified.txt) it is.

[RavenOfOdin]

This is disgusting for many reasons.

First off, the US Army and NSA both are major users of Linux - and if this were really to catch on I think itd hurt Linux in general, for use as well as research. You can't expect anyone to really believe that something like this is done without the attempt to push the licensor's personal beliefs, whether they be political or otherwise, upon the licensee.

Second, GPL'ed software has already undergone changes which are liable to catch fire from one section of the FLOSS community or another - commercial repositories anyone? - and no one really gave a rat's *** then.

Third, "the first law of Robotics" . . .

Such ********.
Since when did robots (thus the term "robotics") become computer software? As far as I'm concerned, "robotics" refers to an arm sitting over a car assembly line.

@Gadren: You want real hypocrisy? Go to a college or university.

[Iandefor]

You know what? It ain't FLOSS to me. FLOSS is about freedom, even to the military. This is silly. This is worse than silly. This is like having a fork that doesn't let you eat meat.

My inflammatory two cents' worth. Have at me!

[erikpiper]

Ugh. Why politics? If this catches on- I dunno what I'd do! I wouldn't use the code- I happen to support the millitary, and it it is SO counter- free! I don't get it..

[RavenOfOdin]

You know what? It ain't FLOSS to me. FLOSS is about freedom, even to the military. This is silly. This is worse than silly. This is like having a fork that doesn't let you eat meat.

My inflammatory two cents' worth. Have at me!

I knew we'd agree on something. :p

Seriously though. . .how would the fork be able to detect the meat on it?

*hears "Final Jeopardy!" music playing in background*

[Iandefor]

I knew we'd agree on something. :p

Seriously though. . .how would the fork be able to detect the meat on it?

*hears "Final Jeopardy!" music playing in background* It was inevitable that we'd agree on something :-D.

The fork would integrate a magic meat-detector. I don't know! It was just a silly comparison!

[win_zik]

You can't expect anyone to really believe that something like this is done without the attempt to push the licensor's personal beliefs, whether they be political or otherwise, upon the licensee.

Say what?
Good thing then that they don't want anybody to believe this but are very clear that this clause is based on their beliefs.



Second, GPL'ed software has already undergone changes which are liable to catch fire from one section of the FLOSS community or another - commercial repositories anyone? - and no one really gave a rat's *** then.

Huh?
Yes there is non-free software running on linux. This does have to do exactly what with the issue at hand?




Third, "the first law of Robotics" . . .

Such ********.
Since when did robots (thus the term "robotics") become computer software? As far as I'm concerned, "robotics" refers to an arm sitting over a car assembly line.

Well, good thing then that they don't claim that software is the same as a robot, but point out that the first law of Robotics highlights a general problem when it comes to technology.
And I quote:

Both developers do agree about one aspect of their license clause. It is based on the first of science fiction writer Isaac Asimov's Three Law of Robotics, which states, "A robot may not harm a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm." That, they say, is a good thing, "because the guy was right," Tegel says, "and he showed the paradox that almost any technological development has to solve, whether it is software or an atom bomb. We must discuss now what ethical problems we may raise in the future."


You know what? It ain't FLOSS to me. FLOSS is about freedom, even to the military.
Well, isn't it great then that they acknowledge that this contradicts the spirit of the GPL:

The developers readily acknowledge that the "patch" contradicts the original intention of the GPL, to provide complete freedom for users of software and source code licensed under it. "This license collides with paragraph six of the Open Source Definition," is how they word it in the license preamble.

Seriously, it's their software, it's their time they spend on it. They are developing something that could also be of interest to the military, but don't want the military to use their work, so they dare to say so in the license. Boo freaking hoo...

[simonn]

http://digg.com/linux_unix/Open_source_project_adds_no_military_use_clause_to _the_GPL
This kind of attitude of "we know better than the user what the user should use this program for" is what irked Stallman to the point of starting this whole free software thing. Why can they not see it?

Possibly because they see aiding in the killing of people as the greater of the two evils?

I know I do.


Seriously, it's their software, it's their time they spend on it. They are developing something that could also be of interest to the military, but don't want the military to use their work, so they dare to say so in the license. Boo freaking hoo...

Agreed.

It is not like the US military is short of cash. So really it is a net gain as foreign militaries should theoretically not benefit.

At the end of the day though, if any military wants to use it, they will probably just take it.

[rattlerviper]

Say what?
Good thing then that they don't want anybody to believe this but are very clear that this clause is based on their beliefs.


Huh?
Yes there is non-free software running on linux. This does have to do exactly what with the issue at hand?



Well, good thing then that they don't claim that software is the same as a robot, but point out that the first law of Robotics highlights a general problem when it comes to technology.
And I quote:



Well, isn't it great then that they acknowledge that this contradicts the spirit of the GPL:


Seriously, it's their software, it's their time they spend on it. They are developing something that could also be of interest to the military, but don't want the military to use their work, so they dare to say so in the license. Boo freaking hoo...


Agreed BUT we also have the right to complain about their discriminatory licensing policies as well. Who specifically is this clause aimed at? The question was asked earlier how would it be enforced? Are they going to take the goverment to court in thier own courtsystem, or will the trial take place in Nuremberg under a war crimes tribunal? I think they have created a lame duck with no way of enforcing it. Frankly I don't care if my Military has to use pirated software on confiscated computers as long as they are protecting our freedoms.

Iandefor
You know what? It ain't FLOSS to me. FLOSS is about freedom, even to the military. This is silly. This is worse than silly. This is like having a fork that doesn't let you eat meat.

My inflammatory two cents' worth. Have at me!
Amen!

[Iandefor]

Well, isn't it great then that they acknowledge that this contradicts the spirit of the GPL It is, in fact, great.
Seriously, it's their software, it's their time they spend on it. They are developing something that could also be of interest to the military, but don't want the military to use their work, so they dare to say so in the license. Boo freaking hoo...And I can't voice my opposition to a restrictive license that logically prohibits me from using the software for anything that isn't directly humanitarian without ridicule from you? Back off.

[win_zik]

And I can't voice my opposition to a restrictive license that logically prohibits me from using the software for anything that isn't directly humanitarian without ridicule from you? Back off.

Where did I say you couldn't? Of course you can.

My point was that people shouldn't get all worked up about some developers giving their software a license that reflects their moral believes. That's all that's happened and I really don't think it merrits all the strong words, attacks and often ridiculous and false arguments I've read in this thread so far.

Case in point, the clause says that the software must not be used to harm a human being. You however chose to translate this into software that "prohibits me from using the software for anything that isn't directly humanitarian", which is of course and I'm sure you are aware of this a gross mischaracterisation.

[rattlerviper]

Where did I say you couldn't? Of course you can.

My point was that people shouldn't get all worked up about some developers giving their software a license that reflects their moral believes. That's all that's happened and I really don't think it merrits all the strong words, attacks and often ridiculous and false arguments I've read in this thread so far.

Case in point, the clause says that the software must not be used to harm a human being. You however chose to translate this into software that "prohibits me from using the software for anything that isn't directly humanitarian", which is of course and I'm sure you are aware of this a gross mischaracterisation.

What is at stake here is once we begin to accept restrictive licenscing we can sit back and watch it become more and more restrictive. As you lose more and more you have less and less to argue for. What you accept the loss of now you can't expect to get back later. What you willingly give up now can't be used to fight more restrictive licensing later.](*,) I for one don't want to end up with a restrictive EULA.

[win_zik]

What is at stake here is once we begin to accept restrictive licenscing we can sit back and watch it become more and more restrictive. As you lose more and more you have less and less to argue for. What you accept the loss of now you can't expect to get back later. What you willingly give up now can't be used to fight more restrictive licensing later.](*,) I for one don't want to end up with a restrictive EULA.

I don't really think that's at stake here just because two guys use a license more restrictive than the GPL for their software. I mean, most software projects probably use a license that's more restrictive, so I don't think this merrits this kind of attention.

I know this is a special case as their license is derived from the GPL, but it's still only two guys releasing some software with a license more restrictive than the GPL and everybody, including the devs, acknowledges that this license is against the spirit of free software.

That said, personally I find the problem they raise about technology and morals far more interesting and challenging and though I don't agree with them, I can certainly sympathize with their decision and intentions.

[rattlerviper]

I don't really think that's at stake here just because two guys use a license more restrictive than the GPL for their software. I mean, most software projects probably use a license that's more restrictive, so I don't think this merrits this kind of attention.

I know this is a special case as their license is derived from the GPL, but it's still only two guys releasing some software with a license more restrictive than the GPL and everybody, including the devs, acknowledges that this license is against the spirit of free software.

That said, personally I find the problem they raise about technology and morals far more interesting and challenging and though I don't agree with them, I can certainly sympathize with their decision and intentions.

I think rather than attempt to remain part of the GPL they should have drawn their own licensing up from scrach so that it was well known that they are no longer part of it. Why pretend right?
And as far as military use of software goes how many lives have the patriot missles saved? Anyone know what thier control system is based on? If we want to go deeply down that road they could licesce their software for lifesaving roles in the military. But all in all it's still pointless. Someone said it would just help the U.S. because our military has plenty of money. Frankly it could only hurt our military because they would probably honor the licesnce while our enemies would not.

[win_zik]

I think rather than attempt to remain part of the GPL they should have drawn their own licensing up from scrach so that it was well known that they are no longer part of it. Why pretend right?

Well, I don't think they pretended, on the contrary they made it clear even in the license that their changes were against the spirit of open source software.
Also, there is of course a practical reason. IANAL but I'm quite sure writing a license from scratch is quite an undertaking.



And as far as military use of software goes how many lives have the patriot missles saved? Anyone know what thier control system is based on? If we want to go deeply down that road they could licesce their software for lifesaving roles in the military. But all in all it's still pointless. Someone said it would just help the U.S. because our military has plenty of money. Frankly it could only hurt our military because they would probably honor the licesnce while our enemies would not.
Frankly, I think this is a too simplistic view.

Of course technology can also be used by the military to develop more precise weapons, thus minimizing civilian deaths. That's a very good point.

But I'm sure you'll also agree that it can also be used to deveop other stuff. What about developing a new cluster bomb that's even deadlier for example?

So the moral dilemma stays imho.

[navymom]

I think rather than attempt to remain part of the GPL they should have drawn their own licensing up from scrach so that it was well known that they are no longer part of it. Why pretend right?
And as far as military use of software goes how many lives have the patriot missles saved? Anyone know what thier control system is based on? If we want to go deeply down that road they could licesce their software for lifesaving roles in the military. But all in all it's still pointless. Someone said it would just help the U.S. because our military has plenty of money. Frankly it could only hurt our military because they would probably honor the licesnce while our enemies would not.

I agree rattleviper....And as for it being a moral issue...wrong people...it's a POLITICAL issue...there are many moral people in the mitilary who happen to believe freedoms are worth fighting for...ugh...I just hate discussions like this for obvious reason (forum id says it all)....It just goes against the entire open source and GPL philosophies so therefore they shouldn't even consider themselves part of it anymore.

[Virogenesis]

I see nothing wrong with it, I quite like the idea to be perfectly honest sure the military work on and improve opensource but they are also in human, peace cannot and will not exist as long as a power exists, the devs understand this and because they do not agree with the military they introduced a cluse perventing the use by the military kudos to them.

As for people sticking up for the military what you have to remember is that, is there are always two sides.

Do you trust the side fighting for your so called freedom?
I don't, I ain't gonna trust someone who goes and tells me to jump off a cliff, so why the hell should I trust someone in a suit that smiles while he lies to me.

At the end of the day it is their work, their time and effort and who are we to say you cannot do this.

[navymom]

you should read the book "lord of the flies"...it would really enlighten you on a lot of myths...without some form of restrictions and enforcement, civilization can not exist. yes there are two sides to every thing....but the belief that the military is the cause for all the disruption, corruption, and whatever other maladies are in the world today is wrong...it's politics...it's the suits in washington (or whatever government head of any given country is) that decides when and where a nation goes to war. the military just obeys the orders. there's nothing wrong or inhumane about serving one's country.

[win_zik]

[QUOTE=navymom;1381294]
there's nothing wrong or inhumane about serving one's country.
You are of course right but I don't think anyone said there is.



yes there are two sides to every thing....but the belief that the military is the cause for all the disruption, corruption, and whatever other maladies are in the world today is wrong...it's politics...it's the suits in washington (or whatever government head of any given country is) that decides when and where a nation goes to war. the military just obeys the orders.
I also didn't understand anyone as saying that the military is the cause for all the bad things you list.
However, I strongly disagree that the military just obeys. They of course also influence political decisions and members of a military also have a moral obligation to make moral decisions, even if this means not to obey in certain circumstances.

[Kimm]

I realy dont understand why some people here has a problem with this.

1. Its THEIR Project
2. They Acknowledge that this is not OSI compliant
3. ANY action that prevents people from being killed is OK.

[Kimm]

However, I strongly disagree that the military just obeys. They of course also influence political decisions and members of a military also have a moral obligation to make moral decisions, even if this means not to obey in certain circumstances.

Agreed, the military has all the power in the world to stand up AGAINST whoever gives them an order.

[Mathias-K]

Damn, that's stupid. To my knowledge, it's breaking the GPL, like Microsoft would be doing if they took GIMP and made it illegal to use for people who didn't pay.

Now that would make Stallman angry..

[win_zik]

Damn, that's stupid. To my knowledge, it's breaking the GPL, like Microsoft would be doing if they took GIMP and made it illegal to use for people who didn't pay.

Now that would make Stallman angry..

How is making your own license based on the GPL breaking the GPL?

[red_Marvin]

I don't have any problem with a software developer designing a licence for his/her product.
However with such a change it is an important fact that the software has gone from a freedom to a beer kind of free.

[Virogenesis]

you should read the book "lord of the flies"...it would really enlighten you on a lot of myths...without some form of restrictions and enforcement, civilization can not exist. yes there are two sides to every thing....but the belief that the military is the cause for all the disruption, corruption, and whatever other maladies are in the world today is wrong...it's politics...it's the suits in washington (or whatever government head of any given country is) that decides when and where a nation goes to war. the military just obeys the orders. there's nothing wrong or inhumane about serving one's country.

What you have to remember is that the US tested nukes in new mexico I can't remember exactly which cemical weapon the UK used against its own people.
Remember that weapons are made for a purpose to kill or injury.
Peace doesn't come through fighting, serving someones country is fine up until a point, being a doctor is serving your country, the fire service is another job that is done for the country, police officer...
the military on the other hand isn't the same as they are sent off to fight wars without a cause other than greed and they are sent over by those in suits those that join the army without being forced into it, know they could well be taking another humans life for what?
Restrictions are needed I never said they weren't but the truth is some don't agree with how things are currently.

[Carrots171]

I don't see what all the fuss is about. What has happened is that the developers of a piece of software made up thier own liscense. And the developers of a piece of software are entiled to choose whatever liscence they want to use.

EDIT: And remember that this liscense is not the GPL. It's a modified version that the developers themselves have stated is not OSI-compliant.

[egon spengler]

And I can't voice my opposition to a restrictive license that logically prohibits me from using the software for anything that isn't directly humanitarian without ridicule from you? Back off.

Translation: I want to rant and complain, who do you think you are to try injecting logic into the discussion?




there are many moral people in the mitilary who happen to believe freedoms are worth fighting for...ugh...I just hate discussions like this for obvious reason (forum id says it all)....It just goes against the entire open source and GPL philosophies so therefore they shouldn't even consider themselves part of it anymore.




you should read the book "lord of the flies"...it would really enlighten you on a lot of myths...without some form of restrictions and enforcement, civilization can not exist.

Well now I'm confused, is it that freedoms are worth fighting for and the GPL (as a device to protect freedom) is something important or is it that civilisation can't exist without restriction (the polar opposite of freedom)?

Oh no, it's just that freedom is nothing but a catchy buzz word thrown around to justify whatever it is that YOU think is right


yes there are two sides to every thing....but the belief that the military is the cause for all the disruption, corruption, and whatever other maladies are in the world today is wrong...it's politics...it's the suits in washington (or whatever government head of any given country is) that decides when and where a nation goes to war. the military just obeys the orders. there's nothing wrong or inhumane about serving one's country.

a) Nobody here said the military was the cause of all the ills. I don't think that's even a common opinion
b) Most people agree that it IS the leaders who cause the ill. Nonetheless the military is the tool they use to cause this ill so it's not quite exempt from the discussion, that's off topic though


Really, as far as I understand it, these guys have the vague concept of "killing is bad" and seeing as one of the tasks the military often has to undertake is killing they decided that they don't want their software involved. Now you can agree or disagree as to whether they are thinking unrealistically about the role of the military but it's funny how all of you champions of freedom are against their freedom to release their software under a license of their choosing

[Kimm]

Damn, that's stupid. To my knowledge, it's breaking the GPL, like Microsoft would be doing if they took GIMP and made it illegal to use for people who didn't pay.

Now that would make Stallman angry..

This is very much different.
This is a NEW Project, The GIMP isnt.

Saying that someone cant license their project under this License is the same as telling MS thay cant make their software closed-source.

[K.Mandla]

Looks pretty straightforward to me. Either it's open source or it's not, and to me, this one isn't. Telling one person they can't use or modify your source because of something you believe is as bad to me as telling everyone they can't use or modify it at all.

Of course, I have been known to oversimplify things.

[Brunellus]

I suppose that this goes into the "authors can choose their licenses freely" department. But once further limitations BEYOND the General Public License are integrated, then the license ceases to be a GPL licence, but rather a fork thereof.

This probably represents a major propaganda loss for GPL software's chances at federal adoption, though. Federal bureaucrats won't differentiate between the GPL (which has no such issues) and this new license, tarring all GPL projects as "no-military-use."

[win_zik]

This probably represents a major propaganda loss for GPL software's chances at federal adoption, though. Federal bureaucrats won't differentiate between the GPL (which has no such issues) and this new license, tarring all GPL projects as "no-military-use."

Oh please. Just because one probably not very significant albeit interesting project uses a license that prohibits military use?
Don't you think you are a overreacting a little bit?

[Brunellus]

Oh please. Just because one probably not very significant albeit interesting project uses a license that prohibits military use?
Don't you think you are a overreacting a little bit?
Considering the fuss this is attracting, you have to assume the worst, especially when it comes to large, entrenched bureaucracies.

Remember, most people struggle with the distinction between a computer and its operating system; what makes you think most people will care about the fine distinctions between two very similar sofware licenses?

[G Morgan]

So basically this is an announcement of a proprietry project known as GPU then. Any project that differentiates who can and can't use it will have no backing off me, especially on some farcical absolute like all killing is wrong.

Surely this breaks the free software guidelines of Ubuntu and would have to be placed in Canonicals own non-free repository should it ever get near Ubuntu.

[Kernel Sanders]

Just a thought...... but who "comes after you" if you break the GPL? Which organisation/person?

Surely the GPL is unenforceable for the average user?

[win_zik]

Considering the fuss this is attracting, you have to assume the worst, especially when it comes to large, entrenched bureaucracies.

Remember, most people struggle with the distinction between a computer and its operating system; what makes you think most people will care about the fine distinctions between two very similar sofware licenses?

This is creating fuss? I only saw this story on some linux related websites, not the place members of entrenched bureaucracies tend to hang around imho.

Also linux and other GPL software is already widely used by governments around the world. Do you really want to tell me that those using it are not aware of the license? Do you really think they emply software without checking the license first?
Do you really think just because something is posted on newsforge and discussed on digg the US military will now suddenly shy away from using linux?

Come on, this really is far fetched to say the least.

[win_zik]

Just a thought...... but who "comes after you" if you break the GPL? Which organisation/person?

Surely the GPL is unenforceable for the average user?

The GPL, like all licenses, is enforcable by the one who put something under this license.
For example the netfilter project was active in this regard:
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/04/15/1649250

Then there's of course also the gpl-violations project which tries to help people to "come after" those who break the license:
http://gpl-violations.org/

[RavenOfOdin]

However, I strongly disagree that the military just obeys. They of course also influence political decisions and members of a military also have a moral obligation to make moral decisions, even if this means not to obey in certain circumstances.

So you think a court-martial on charges of treason (read as: refusing the direct orders of a superior officer) is the lesser of the two evils, no, even desirable in any way?

That approach is horrible.

Personally. . .If I'm dumped in the middle of a region where someone would shoot me simply for being white and wearing camo from head to toe, I wouldn't refuse any order I was given, whether it be to go from point X to point Y or to shoot someone in the head.

Remember, one of the bonuses in a situation like that is at the end of the day, you may get out alive.

@Iandefor: That "meat detecting fork" thing was meant to be silly so I really didn't expect a serious response. :p

[YourSurrogateGod]

This is disgusting for many reasons.

First off, the US Army and NSA both are major users of Linux - and if this were really to catch on I think itd hurt Linux in general, for use as well as research. You can't expect anyone to really believe that something like this is done without the attempt to push the licensor's personal beliefs, whether they be political or otherwise, upon the licensee.

Bingo. I know of many people in the armed forces (in the US atleast, other countries' militaries use it as well, if not more) that use Linux/Unix. These people often learn how to use Linux and adopt it (the more people that adopt LAMP, the better.) Militaries tend to be expenditures for governments and if LAMP got around in those circles, more and more resources could be spent on improving such technology (something that would allow everyone to benefit.)

It sets a dangerous precedent that this type of software will no longer be free and we're going to go back to EULA type licenses where there are restrictions as to what you can do with a given piece of code.

If you ask me, this software is not free as one would think (OpenBSD, Debian, etc.)

[YourSurrogateGod]

http://digg.com/linux_unix/Open_source_project_adds_no_military_use_clause_to _the_GPL

What irks me the most is the hypocrisy of the members of the FSF and OSI who, while they officially "object" to this, are willing to look the other way just because it's their own views. The quotes in that Sourceforge story show that they're carefully walking around the issue by supporting their pacifist goals while not touching much on their methods.

If you want to forbid the military from using your program, go ahead, but don't expect it to be considered open source. This kind of attitude of "we know better than the user what the user should use this program for" is what irked Stallman to the point of starting this whole free software thing. Why can they not see it?

Very good points. This is indeed a grave hypocrisy.

[YourSurrogateGod]

Possibly because they see aiding in the killing of people as the greater of the two evils?

I know I do.
When it comes to such ideals as open source, it is absurd to start drawing lines in the sand in order to achieve a "lesser" evil. In this instance, such a thing doesn't fly.

[jimrz]

You know what? It ain't FLOSS to me. FLOSS is about freedom, even to the military. This is silly. This is worse than silly. This is like having a fork that doesn't let you eat meat.

My inflammatory two cents' worth. Have at me!

What he said !!!

Like free speech, if you only want it to apply to things that conform to your personal comfort zone then you DO NOT understand the concept.

[Iandefor]

What he said !!!

Like free speech, if you only want it to apply to things that conform to your personal comfort zone then you DO NOT understand the concept. To be fair, they do understand the concept. They explicitly said that they're aware it's in breach of the OSI definition of Free Software.

[rattlerviper]

Looks pretty straightforward to me. Either it's open source or it's not, and to me, this one isn't. Telling one person they can't use or modify your source because of something you believe is as bad to me as telling everyone they can't use or modify it at all.

Of course, I have been known to oversimplify things.

I agree with the first part of your statement 100%
as for the second part...maybe you do maybe you don't;)

[egon spengler]

What he said !!!

Like free speech, if you only want it to apply to things that conform to your personal comfort zone then you DO NOT understand the concept.

Or like suporting the rights of developers to license their code as they see fit but then crying about it when they license it in a way that you don't approve of?

That kind of hypocrisy?


So you think a court-martial on charges of treason (read as: refusing the direct orders of a superior officer) is the lesser of the two evils, no, even desirable in any way?

That approach is horrible.

Of course there is a glaringly obvious paralel to this line of logic


Very good points. This is indeed a grave hypocrisy.

Well actually you're the hypocrite but n/m, just get up on your soapbox anyway. The FSF said they object, what more can they do? The hypocrisy is that your support of idealism only goes so far as what you consider OK. If the right to license stuff as GPL should exist then the right to license stuff as GPL -military must also exist

[Yossarian]

I second that, egon spengler.

[BWF89]

Their program used to be under the GPL, I thought the GPL forbid anyone from distributing it under and licence that wasn't GPL or a newer version of it?

Plus it just reinforces the myth that all Linux users are hippies.

GPU devs still haven't fixed this part of the FAQ. (http://gpu.sourceforge.net/faq.php#open)

[win_zik]

Their program used to be under the GPL, I thought the GPL forbid anyone from distributing it under and licence that wasn't GPL or a newer version of it?

It's their code. They can license it under any damn license they want to. They can even license it under 365 different licenses simultanously if they desire to do so.



Plus it just reinforces the myth that all Linux users are hippies.

Who thinks that was the case anyway?
12 year old retards?

[rattlerviper]

Who thinks that was the case anyway?
12 year old retards?

I personally find this comment highly offensive. I think that maybe you should choose the words for your arguement a little more carefully.

[win_zik]

I personally find this comment highly offensive. I think that maybe you should choose the words for your arguement a little more carefully.

I'm sorry then, it wasn't my intention to offend anyone, I simply wanted to express that people who hold the opinion mentioned are really, really stupid anyway.

P.S.: Don't get me wrong, but what exactly did you find offensive about my comment? English is not my native language, so maybe I said something that you found offensive without even realicing it. So I'd really appreciate it if you cleared this up. Thanks.

[rattlerviper]

I'm sorry then, it wasn't my intention to offend anyone, I simply wanted to express that people who hold the opinion mentioned are really, really stupid anyway.

P.S.: Don't get me wrong, but what exactly did you find offensive about my comment? English is not my native language, so maybe I said something that you found offensive without even realicing it. So I'd really appreciate it if you cleared this up. Thanks.

Understood. I am usually quick to react to stand up for those with disabilities. I would agree with you that those that felt like it was hippies using Linux are DAP (dumb as a post). It was just using the word "retarded" to refer to how dome somebody was. Those with down syndrome suffer from a medical condition that is not their fault, and there is nothing they can do about it. Whereas some jerk that thinks we are a bunch of hippies for using Linux needs to educate himself.

All is forgiven my friend. Now if you want to refer to yourself as retarded I have done so myself, somehow it is less offensive to me but I'm sure still offensive to some others.

Once again I will agree with you anyone who thinks hippies are the ones using linux are really really dumb!

[RavenOfOdin]

If you ask me, this software is not free as one would think (OpenBSD, Debian, etc.)

Agreed.



Of course there is a glaringly obvious paralel to this line of logic


The ******** non-argument of "parallels" doesn't fly with me. We're supposed to be out of grade school; past the "I'm rubber and you're glue" stage.


I personally find this comment highly offensive. I think that maybe you should choose the words for your arguement a little more carefully.

Remember . . .this is the Internet.

[win_zik]

Understood. I am usually quick to react to stand up for those with disabilities. I would agree with you that those that felt like it was hippies using Linux are DAP (dumb as a post). It was just using the word "retarded" to refer to how dome somebody was. Those with down syndrome suffer from a medical condition that is not their fault, and there is nothing they can do about it. Whereas some jerk that thinks we are a bunch of hippies for using Linux needs to educate himself.

All is forgiven my friend. Now if you want to refer to yourself as retarded I have done so myself, somehow it is less offensive to me but I'm sure still offensive to some others.

Once again I will agree with you anyone who thinks hippies are the ones using linux are really really dumb!

Thanks for clearing this up.
Rest assured, it was in no way my intention to say something negative about people with disabilities, I was just using the word retard in the sence of idiot, someone really dumb, obviously without thinking about the connotations this word has and certainly without wanting to offend anyone.

[rattlerviper]

double post

[rattlerviper]

Remember . . .this is the Internet.

Admitted I was too quick to react. 8-[ I think most days it would have not bothered me in the least. Just found out some information that has upset me emotionally. I do appologize for being so quick to jump.:cry:

[win_zik]

Admitted I was too quick to react. 8-[ I think most days it would have not bothered me in the least. Just found out some information that has upset me emotionally. I do appologize for being so quick to jump.:cry:

No need to appologize. I think it was perfectly alright for you to point this out so that I could correct my mistake.

[egon spengler]

The ******** non-argument of "parallels" doesn't fly with me. We're supposed to be out of grade school; past the "I'm rubber and you're glue" stage.

What the hell are you talking about?

[whynotchevron]

First why design something of military use ? then ban it from said use .
If it was'nt for the military we would not be having this post http://www.davesite.com/webstation/net-history.shtml
There are many differences of duo purpose .
Nuclear : power to light thousands of houses , able to vaporize hundreds of thousand of people
Laser : able to put a shelf level on the wall , or make sure a weapon will hit it's target
Chemicals : medicine to cure the sick , or cause death of others
Computer : a item for productivity - entertainment - communications , or something to design a weapon of mass destruction .
e-mail : program I use to tell my dad how his grandson did in baseball , or some other person ( i'm being polite not the word i want to use ) from planning the next 9/11
Alot of military application found there way to the civilian usefullness and I for one thank them .
Be carefull who you tell what they can or cannot do.
just my 2 cent no comment needed

[mips]

Some civilian technologies might not have been available today had it not been for military research. Yes they get a lot of funding for research but thats our fault, think it would be harder to obtain funding for non-military projects.

I for one would like to thank the US defence department for the the Internet as we know it today :)

PS. I'm in no way a military man and usuallity find myself criticising them or finding fault with them.

[Redcard]

This is an unenforcable clause.

A court could simply rule that this does not apply, and the clause regarding "striking clauses" will take precedent.

The "patch" is too vague and non-specific. Therefore, it can roughly apply to everyone.

It's unapplicable.

[RavenOfOdin]

What the hell are you talking about?

I'm talking about an insult kids threw around when I was in third grade.

"i'm rubber, you're glue, it bounces off me and it sticks to you."

What it boiled down to was an attempt at being circular and accusing everyone of hypocrisy/parallel behavior.
Which I notice you are doing quite a lot of in this thread.

[BWF89]

They have the right to licence their program under an anti-military licence. We have the right to badmouth them for doing it so there'd be enough of a backlash that other pacifist programmers won't do the same to their programs and to boycott their program. If I used GPU I'd send them an email stating that I'm going to be switching to another program because of their political stance their shoving down my throte. I wouldn't care so much if they had banners for some hippie peace websites on the projects homepage (although I'd look for a viable alternative if one existed) but when they actively try to force their ideology on me my responce isn't going to be positive.

If the US or British military wanted to use GPU to share files they wouldn't be able to because they would have to face the developers in court for violating the licence. But a terrorist organization could if they wanted because if you plan on bombing a bridge your obviousaly not going to care if your breaking someones copyright.

[Redcard]

They have the right to licence their program under an anti-military licence. We have the right to badmouth them for doing it so there'd be enough of a backlash that other pacifist programmers won't do the same to their programs and to boycott their program. If I used GPU I'd send them an email stating that I'm going to be switching to another program because of their political stance their shoving down my throte. I wouldn't care so much if they had banners for some hippie peace websites on the projects homepage (although I'd look for a viable alternative if one existed) but when they actively try to force their ideology on me my responce isn't going to be positive.

If the US or British military wanted to use GPU to share files they wouldn't be able to because they would have to face the developers in court for violating the licence. But a terrorist organization could if they wanted because if you plan on bombing a bridge your obviousaly not going to care if your breaking someones copyright.

You're missing the point.

They can't do it. The GPL doesn't allow for a patch of this nature. Maybe if they picked something other than the GPL, they could do it.. but these two clauses are incompatible. In a court case, if tested, the clause regarding military limitation would be kicked out, and via the other clause, the product would remain under the GPL license.

Further, the GPL is viral. It says in the GPL that you can use other versions of it. This clause is completely unenforcable.

[RavenOfOdin]

Further, the GPL is viral. It says in the GPL that you can use other versions of it. This clause is completely unenforcable.

You're right! Why didn't I think of that? :p

[simonn]

there'd be enough of a backlash that other pacifist programmers won't do the same to their programs and to boycott their program.

And as a pacifist and a programmer I would yawn and think "yeah, whatever Don't use it then, it really is absolutely no loss to me."


If the US or British military wanted to use GPU to share files they wouldn't be able to because they would have to face the developers in court for violating the licence. But a terrorist organization could if they wanted because if you plan on bombing a bridge your obviousaly not going to care if your breaking someones copyright.

If any military wanted to use it, they probably would just use it and make it an official secret (or equivilent of) to divulge it's usage.



They can't do it. The GPL doesn't allow for a patch of this nature. Maybe if they picked something other than the GPL, they could do it.. but these two clauses are incompatible. In a court case, if tested, the clause regarding military limitation would be kicked out, and via the other clause, the product would remain under the GPL license.

Further, the GPL is viral. It says in the GPL that you can use other versions of it. This clause is completely unenforcable.

The software is not GPLed. I haven't looked but I am pretty sure they would have changed "GPL version ??? or later version" to "GPL-non-military version ??? or later version" (or similar).

If it were tested in court, I am sure the court would simply say a more long-winded version of "Tough luck Mr Pacifist Programmer we have decided this clause is invalid".

[simonn]

From the license:



The Program and its derivative work will neither be modified or executed to harm a
ny human being nor through inaction permit any human being to be harmed.
This is Asimov's first law of Robotics.

[goatflyer]

Actually, isn't it against the GPL for anyone to add further restrictions to the software since it was never theirs to begin with?

The original GPL protects my rights to use software. No one can take that away.

btw i'm pacifist too, but I think this is a very bad development. What's next? Ubuntu christian edition forbidding the software to be used by satanists?

[Iandefor]

Actually, isn't it against the GPL for anyone to add further restrictions to the software since it was never theirs to begin with?

The original GPL protects my rights to use software. No one can take that away.

btw i'm pacifist too, but I think this is a very bad development. What's next? Ubuntu christian edition forbidding the software to be used by satanists? Actually, the gpl is just a license. If they make a piece of software and choose to license it under their own license based off of the GPL, well, as long as it's internally consistent and they don't call it the GPL, it's fine.

[Redcard]

Actually, the gpl is just a license. If they make a piece of software and choose to license it under their own license based off of the GPL, well, as long as it's internally consistent and they don't call it the GPL, it's fine.

That's the problem.

They say it's a "patch" to the GPL.

The GPL says that "incompatible parts" are simply ignored at the expense of the incompatible parts, and not the GPL as a whole.

This can't be a patch to the GPL.

Maybe another license.. but not the GPL.

Further, as written, the clause is unenforcable. I mean. .causes harm to another human? Let's be realistic. What is harm? Is playing an online game at the expense of exercise and healthy activity causing harm?

No.. this is unenforcable. You cannot draw a proximate cause from the execution of a program to "harm" without encompassing all action. And as such, it's exemptable from the GPL per the GPL's own "line item veto" clause.

[jstueve]

what is ironic, is that it is a network applications, and as such builds upon the TCP/IP stack, which started from a DARPA project... DARPA - Defense Advanced Research Project Agency. (or, if it weren't for military funding, there would be no TCP/IP (at least as we know it))

[egon spengler]

I'm talking about an insult kids threw around when I was in third grade.

"i'm rubber, you're glue, it bounces off me and it sticks to you."

What it boiled down to was an attempt at being circular and accusing everyone of hypocrisy/parallel behavior.
Which I notice you are doing quite a lot of in this thread.

Ummmm... no. There is a parallel to the "Just following orders" defense is what I was saying. Anyway, the Nuremburg trials long ago established that following orders is not an acceptable defense, in fact American soldiers are trained and required to disregard unlawful orders and report the officer in question.

And of course I am going to call a hypocrite a hypocrite. If someone just come forward and says "I'm a big fan of the military and so I dislike anything I perceive as against them" then that would be a respectable standpoint. This pretence of defending the precious rights enshrined in the GPL while at the same time being angered at individuals actually making use of their rights is pure hypocrisy

[RavenOfOdin]

Ummmm... no. There is a parallel to the "Just following orders"
defense is what I was saying. Anyway, the Nuremburg trials long ago established that following
orders is not an acceptable defense, in fact American soldiers are trained and required to
disregard unlawful orders and report the officer in question.

That is stupid beyond words. Don't even try linking American soldiers or foreign policy to a
boogeyman of mass murder.



And of course I am going to call a hypocrite a hypocrite. If someone just come forward and says "I'm a big fan of the military and so I dislike anything I perceive as against them" then that would be a respectable standpoint. This pretence of defending the precious rights enshrined in the GPL while at the same time being angered at individuals actually making use of their rights is pure hypocrisy

There are a few things wrong with that approach:

1. These yahoos in question are no longer operating on the GPL.
2. The GPL as it is wasn't made to support agendas of any type.
3. The rights in the GPL refer to freedom of software (free as in beer, anyone?) and not the
freedom to push your ***unrelated*** beliefs upon others.

[Redcard]

Okay.

Time for some harsh, end of argument statements.

THIS is pointless. You cannot use the GPL with a "patch" like this. IT takes more modifications than just using a stock GPL and adding in a vague and unenforcable contract term.

THis is why you have things created by lawyers. The fact is, no judge in their right mind will allow this clause in.. and we're not even discussing the fact that this clause CANNOT ENTER THE GPL AT ALL. The GPL MUST BE HORRIBLY MODIFIED TO EVEN SUPPORT THE INSERTION OF THIS PATCH.

Here are somet things wrong with this:

It does not define Harm.
It does not define execution and how executing can cause harm.
It does not define modification and how modifying can cause harm.
It does not define inaction.
It does not define how inaction can lead to harm.
It does not define who is allowed to or not allowed to execute it.

This needs to define these things.. especially harm.. before it becomes enforcable. Until it defines those things, the definition of harm is so vague that the entire clause would be rendered moot, and under the later clause of the GPL, that clause will have to be removed.

You cannot simply duct tape a legal document and have it remain enforcable. Not even if you are some punk who thinks that the "Laws of Robotics" (which are NOT laws in any legal sense) are spiffykeen.

[punkinside]

It doesn't prevent military use; it prevents offensive military use.

It would be perfectly acceptable to fire anti-missile weapons using this software. In fact, anti-missile weapons with this software built-in _must_ be fired when humans are attacked, according to the license.

Cast in that light, I wonder whether it really does contravene the OSD. It doesn't prevent the military using the software.

this is one of the comments after the article, i wont get into the whole enforceable argument. what do you think of this?

[Redcard]

this is one of the comments after the article, i wont get into the whole enforceable argument. what do you think of this?

I disagree.

If you launch an anti-missile missile, you are launching an explosive device. If the exposive device explodes amongst the missile, and then the wreckage falls out of the sky onto a playground, it could kill innocent children. The rule explicitly bans harm without defining harm or issuing mitigating circumstances.

In the first Iraq war, we had people talking about "The Patriot Missile Shield." What you did not get to hear was that the Patriot Shield was effective in less than 20 percent of the targets. You didn't get to hear about how many of the missiles went astray and ended up causing damage at another location, or how many directed Scud missiles off course into higher casualty areas.

Missiles.. be they Anti-Missile Missiles or not, contain explosives that are not capable of completely vaporizing their own transport vehicle much less the vehicles they are targeting. To assume that this clause refers to intent behind the action negates the clause. Namely, that NO harm should come AT ALL.

[win_zik]

That is stupid beyond words. Don't even try linking American soldiers or foreign policy to a
boogeyman of mass murder.

LOL. How did I know that I would read exactly this poor excuse of an argument?

The only problem is of course, he didn't do what you allege he did. He only pointed out why your argument was wrong, something you now conveniently ignore, instead accusing him of something he didn't do.

In fact it can be argued that the only one who linked American soldiers to a boogeyman is you, when you used the same wrong argument that Nazi soldiers used to defend war crimes, an argument officially rejected by the US military.



There are a few things wrong with that approach:

1. These yahoos in question are no longer operating on the GPL.

Totally irrelevant for egon spengler's argument.



2. The GPL as it is wasn't made to support agendas of any type.

This has got to be one of the most uninformed comments I've read in a while. Please educate yourself about the GPL and the free software movement. The GPL was specificly made to further the agenda of this movement.



3. The rights in the GPL refer to freedom of software (free as in beer, anyone?) and not the
freedom to push your ***unrelated*** beliefs upon others.
Yes, they refer to freedom and while you argue that you care about this principal, you at the same time bash someone for exercizing their freedom to license their code any way they see fit.