SLUC licence

[Praxicoide]

I don't know if this has been posted before, but there is a new licence agreement called SLUC. It stands for Software Libre para Uso Civil (Civilian Use Free Software).

Their site says that it is basically the same as GLP, except that it does not allow any military use of their software.

From the licence:


This program is designed for an exclusively civilian use. It is explicitly prohipited it's military use without the written use of the copyright holder of the program. We understand as "military use" two possible cases:

A.- The use by military personnel, either as a professional or a particular, defining "military personnel" anyone who is voluntarily holding his or herself to some type of military legislation.

B.- The use or integration in the making of any type of ofensive armament, understanding this as the use that would allow the making by any prt of the staff of companies or institutions whose stock composition has 51% or more percent from institutions run by military legislation, or that it has in its client composition 51% or more run by military legislation. Ofensive armament is understood as that which is designed not for defense but for an attack against a hypothetical enemy.

Considering that this definition of military use, although precise, can be prone to interpretation, the copyright holder reserves its right to clarify, in any concrete case, any doubts that might arise. Therefore it is recommended in case of any doubt to reed the question and answer document on the SLUC licence, which can be found in the previously mentioned official website

This is just my botched translation. You can check their site: http://www.sluc.info

I don't know what to think of it, on one hand it can create a lot of problems to have to deal with GLP and SLUC licences, but on the other hand, they cite the right to freedom of concience, which means that no one can be forced to do something that goes against their ethycal principles or beliefs.

[BWF89]

I remember reading about that awhile ago.

If the license discriminates against fields of indevor than its not open source. That's one of the definitions of what has to be in a license to be classified as an open source license. A good example Bruce Perens gave is "if you make an open source piece of software you have to give freedom to both an abortion clinic to run it as well as an anti-abortion activist group or it's not open source" or something along those lines.

They can make their own license and use it all they want. I just won't use any software that doesn't allow the military to use it. Especially since I have a great deal of respect for those serving in the military and might be joining the army either after high school or after trade school.

[spockrock]

yeah the opensourcy-ness of this license can be questioned, I actually like the idea of this license, not gonna lie I would not like to make a piece of code and then eventually its put in a piece military hardware and next thing I know, my software is responsible for 'bringing democracy' to <insert former US ally> or civil obedience by some lunatic dictator, and thousands of people are dead. Sorry I became weapons don't make the world a safer place.

[BWF89]

my software is responsible for 'bringing democracy' to <insert former US ally> or civil obedience by some lunatic dictator, and thousands of people are dead. Sorry I became weapons don't make the world a safer place.
This license is only going to stop the US and European militaries from using it though. It's not going to stop some African dictator, East Asian communist regime, or South American military uprising from using it. Because their not likely to care about the license. So your crippling your own country while giving a free pass to others.

[Praxicoide]

This license is only going to stop the US and European militaries from using it though. It's not going to stop some African dictator, East Asian communist regime, or South American military uprising from using it. Because their not likely to care about the license. So your crippling your own country while giving a free pass to others.

That's a very subjective view. By your logic we shouldn't make any type of technology, because The Other might use it. If someone decides to violate the licence and use software for military purposes, that's beyond the control of the maker, but if the maker can avoid having one "side" from using it, then that's a plus.

You are also confusing the military with "your country" and assumes that people have the duty to aid it.

Given the colusion between the military and the weapons industry, and the interests created from that, many might not want to "give a free pass" to "their country", often the agressor, and might not see the necessity of viewing others parts of the world as threats. That has nothing to do with afinity or lack of afinity with one's country.

[BWF89]

Given the colusion between the military and the weapons industry, and the interests created from that, many might not want to "give a free pass" to "their country", often the agressor, and might not see the necessity of viewing others parts of the world as threats. That has nothing to do with afinity or lack of afinity with one's country.
So your confirming my theory that the people that wrote this license (as I already suspected) wrote it not to stop militaries in general from using it. Just the militaries of the evil US and European countries.

What program was the first to use this license? Wasn't it some kind of file sharing network?

[Tomosaur]

Prohibiting military use is absolutely pathetic, and these guys should be ashamed of themselves for ever conceiving this licence. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not one of these 'MILTERY RULZ!' people - but I understand the need for a military force, primarily for defence, but also for a pre-emptive strike against an obvious enemy. The military is also one of the primary leaders in pushing for new technology. The idea of prohibiting 'military personnel' is disgusting and smacks of snobbery.

[Praxicoide]

I remember reading about that awhile ago.

If the license discriminates against fields of indevor than its not open source. That's one of the definitions of what has to be in a license to be classified as an open source license. A good example Bruce Perens gave is "if you make an open source piece of software you have to give freedom to both an abortion clinic to run it as well as an anti-abortion activist group or it's not open source" or something along those lines.

They can make their own license and use it all they want. I just won't use any software that doesn't allow the military to use it. Especially since I have a great deal of respect for those serving in the military and might be joining the army either after high school or after trade school.

Rather than giving you their point of view (which is not necessarily mine), here is the relevant part from their Q&A section of ther site:


SLUC software defends the freedom of concience of developers, but shouldn't it defend the freedom of its users, instead of its developers?

SLUC Software defends the freedom of both. The distinction between users and developers is something artificial that benefits the private software indistry, but not the free software movement.
Not only because every developer is also a user, but also because the free software movement seeks the democratization and the participation of EVERYONE in the information revolution we are living. It is the personal decision of each "user" to take the next step and become a "developer" and read the source code of programs, try to understand it, and if he considers convenient, to modify it. It doesn't seem very sound that if someone, in his/her particular use of freedom, decides to take that step, has to adopt certain norms that make him/her sacrifice his right to freedom of concience.
This is the crucial point that distinguishes SLUC from GPL. When a user decides to "become a developer" and adopts the GPL licence for his/her programs, he/she is waiving part of his/her right to Freedom of Concience. And that's irreversible in GPL, but not in SLUC.

SLUC software does not defend the freedom of concience for developers, since it forces them to forbid military use of the programs. If it were real freedom it would allow them to choose.
The GLP developer cannot use: the software can be used by the military, period. SLUC software allows choice, although it is through a procedure that can be a bit bothersome for developers, this is their rights to give individual permits in writing to militaries or armed forces or weapon companies. This is in an individualized and nominal way, and we will also see that it becomes public. In general, SLUC does not allow military use, but it leaves the door open.

We would wish for GPL to give this minimal freedom to developers. If it did, we probably would never have promoted SLUC licence. The GPL developer has to adapt to an unnatural narrowness, in our view, but to each its own.

SLUC software is not free, but discriminatSLUC software is not free, but discriminatoryory

You might think that SLUC software is ofensive against a particular group of the population, but if one thinks it through, you would see that it is not. Antimilitarism, as a personal option, is not against military persons, but against the race between armies to see who is able to accumulate more destruction faster. This is militarism, which is what antimilitarism fights against, not military people. This are people that deserve as people all the respect in the world, as long as they don't attempt against the physical integrity of freedom of others.
Having defined military use as made by military personnel is not against military people as individuals, even though it seems like it. It goes against their personal decision to abide by military rules that could force them, against their will even, to make actions we consider inmoral, even though civil and military legislation considers them legal.
The SLUC licence stresses the Right to the Freedom of Concience, which is a right waived voluntarily by the military. By doing this they also volutarily waive SLUC software.
Therefore, it is not about persecuting a particular group, such as white people, men, catholics or heterosexuals, but to guarrantee the Freedom of Concience as an inalianable right, which includes of course, the right to voluntarily renounce to this right.

This SLUC licence...Doesn't it create the risk of dividing further the free software movement? What if other anti-abortion, anti-whatever, start to appear?

Unfortunately, there is certain risk. There is some blame to share, I would say 50% on us and the other 50% on GPL defenders.
However, there are two things that I want to clarify on this subject. The first is that free software is, by consensus of the comunity, is that which guarrantees the public access to the source code and the freedom to modify it and redistribute it with the same freedom it was received. Therefore, those who would want to develop another licence, will have a hard time to define how their view on freedom is not covered either by GPL or by SLUC, to justify that their iniciative is not a simple attempt to divide the community. I already said that SLUC did not intend any division, although it could not be avoided given the current conditions of the GPL.

The second has to do with the anti-abortion example. Abortionists or anti-abortionists, as long as they are civilians, enjoy their right to Freedom of Concience. Military people do not. If a doctor decides to perform or not to perform an abortion, he is exercising that right. A military person could be pulling a trigger against his will.
These cases have no comparison. Writing software that can be used by the military is collaborating with the war in an indirect way, even if the soldiers are against practicing it, because they are forced by oath.

[Praxicoide]

So your confirming my theory that the people that wrote this license (as I already suspected) wrote it not to stop militaries in general from using it. Just the militaries of the evil US and European countries.

What program was the first to use this license? Wasn't it some kind of file sharing network?

How could I confirm anything?. I was just pointing out the flaws in your arguments, that other people might not necessarily think like you do. and that they might be against any military use, not just "the evil ones", because they might not necessarily see "sides".

[spockrock]

cutting edge technology is often comes from the military because it has the budget to research cutting edge science and technology and find a military application.

I live in Canada and the largest funder of research grants for professors, is the US Military, with a 400 Billion Dollar Budget, you can afford to research and develop cutting edge technology, and then use it for military application.

[internete]

Hello, Ubuntu forum users:

I am Alejandro Bonet, the main writer of the SLUC license.

This is my first post on this forum. I like very much Ubuntu.
Its very deep philosophy about languages respect, matchs the mine.

I like very much GPL license, but i dont write GPL software,
because its freedom cero goes against my principles.

I encourage anybody to use GPL software, and Ubuntu specially also
Knoppix and other GNU/Linux distributions i use daily.

But i dont encourage people to write GPL software, because they should
renunce to his Freedom of Concience doing so. Some people will not
consider this, but i need to consider it, because i will free many programs
in the following months, and SLUC license is better than GPL from my point
of view, because it respects developers and users freedom better.

I was prosecuted, judgated and condenated in my country in 1990, only
for the crime i dont want to inscribe in the obligatory army. Some thousands
of spanish young people did the same, causing a social conmotion, and today
the army in Spain is "professional", and not obligatory. They say they defend us,
but a little seek over Spain history shows it is not true.

I think armies are an old stuff, uncapable to resolv conflicts. Also i see that these
armies are very good bussiness for some people, and sometimes are the real origin
of the conflicts.

SLUC license will not end the armies, but could be a good start, like many others.
Also, the end of the armies will not be the end of conflicts, but will be the start of
another pacific ways to resolve them.

My english is not from Oxford, you know, but i read the previous posts in
this forum, and i see very good english translations about my texts about SLUC
license.

If the autor of this translations give permission to me to put these translations
in the SLUC official page, i will give him many thanks. Also i need to translate
all these texts to other languages and i have some collaborators to build the
multilingual version of the site, but it will not be available tomorrow morning.

All the texts in sluc.info will be ABSOLUTELY FREE. (Except the license itself,
by ovbiuos reasons, in the sense of keep it spirit).


Best regards to everybody who loves Free Software.
Specially to those hate militarism, like me.


Alejandro Bonet
http://www.sluc.info

[Praxicoide]

Hola Alejandro,

Es un alivio ver que no te hayas molestado por traducir trozos de tu sitio por iniciativa propia. Puedo traducir el resto del sitio si gustas, sólo que no soy un traductor "profesional", aunque por mi trabajo traduzco todos los días. También te estaré molestando si me surge cualquier duda a la hora de traducción.


Hello Alejandro,

It is a relief to see that you are not bothered by the fact that I translated pieces from your site by my own iniciative. I can translate the rest of your site, if you like, although I'm not a "professional" translator, in my work I have to translate everyday. I will be bugging you if I have any questions when it comes to translating.

[internete]

Conche, Praixicode, pues no sabes lo que te lo agradezco.
>Caspita, Praixicode, you dont know how i thank you.

Por supuesto. Si necesitas cualquier cosa por email escribeme a info@sluc.info
Estoy creando buzones nuevos personales sobre este dominio, si quieres uno
(pop3 o webmail) no tienes mas que decirmelo.
>Of course. If you need anything by email write me to info@sluc.info
I am creating new personal mailboxes over this domain, if you want one of them
(pop3 o webmail) please tell it to me.

Tu ingles es perfecto. Desde luego infinitamente mejor que el mio.
Si no eres traductor profesional es porque no quieres.
>Your english is perfect. Much better than mine.
If you are not a professional translator is because you dont want it.


Muchisimas gracias!!
Very very thanks!!

Alejandro Bonet