4 ms·

Nice to see that instead of a free license they've opted for a bullshit made-up one where they want you to cite their papers.

by Y_Y 9y ago

matthewmacleod 9y ago
Why is that “bullshit”?
- michaelt 9y ago
  License proliferation leads to complicated license compatibility relationships [1]. Imagine someone wanted to, say, provide native support in GNUradio - as has been done for the RTL-SDR. It's impossible unless you relicense one or the other. Of course, the code's being given away for free; you could argue one shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth. And it's quite possible no-one would attempt such a merge even if it was permitted by the license. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_proliferation#License_compatibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_proliferation#License_...
bringtheaction 9y ago
The license is MIT but not MIT. It’s the MIT license with two additional conditions imposed; - The one you mentioned about citation. - “The Software is not used by, in cooperation with, or on behalf of any armed forces, intelligence agencies, reconnaissance agencies, defense agencies, offense agencies or any supplier, contractor, or research associated.” https://github.com/seemoo-lab/mobisys2018_nexmon_software_defined_radio/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/seemoo-lab/mobisys2018_nexmon_software_de... Even just the one about citation is problematic but IMO the condition about armed forces and so on is even worse. I kind of see where they are coming from but I wish people just used standard MIT and acknowledged that yes your software might end up being used for something that you do not agree with morally. And if they are going to impose such restrictions, why stop there? Why not also say that you cannot use the software to transmit for example child pornography? And how about saying that you cannot use it to spread false information, fake news etc? I would be exaggerating, but not much, if I were to say that as soon as you introduce one or more moral restrictions into a software license, you are implicitly saying that any moral concern not mentioned is ok. How about terrorism? They didn’t say anything about terrorism so I guess using their software for terror is fine as long as the terrorists are not an “armed force”, an intelligence agency etc. Technology has infitinite uses, a whole host of which are good, probably as many that are bad, and likewise an uncountable amount of uses that are either neither or both, and very many that will be one thing for some people and the other for other people. It should in my opinion not be the job of a software license to pass moral judgement. Either you release your software for anyone to use for any purpose under the terms of an unmodified license accepted by the community or you might as well not bother trying to be open source at all.
- viraptor 9y ago
  > Why not also say that you cannot use the software to transmit for example child pornography? Because it's already illegal, so the point would be a noop. On the other hand, contracting for the army is legal and one of the places where licenses may be reviewed/enforced internally. Same for terrorism. (Also, why would terrorists respect the license)
  - em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
    But as parent said, "Technology has infitinite uses", so what about the other infinite uses?
    - davrosthedalek 9y ago
      Well I guess you can divide them in illegal uses (license does not matter) and legal uses (license could matter). I guess from all the legal uses, the authors disliked military etc. use enough to exclude it. Their choice.
- raarts 9y ago
  I applaud them for taking these things into consideration, and trying to fight the bad forces in the universe.
  - ferongr 9y ago
    Is this sarcasm?
    - inteleng 9y ago
      Is this sarcasm?
      - vokep 9y ago
        Is this sarcasm?
davrosthedalek 9y ago
It's their work, it's their prerogative to select the license. If you don't like it, leave it.
- ris 9y ago
  Incorrect - not all licenses are legally valid or enforcible.

Nice to see that instead of a free license they've opted for a bullshit made-up one where they want you to cite their papers.

by Y_Y 9y ago

Nice to see that instead of a free license they've opted for a bullshit made-up one where they want you to cite their papers.

matthewmacleod 9y ago

Why is that “bullshit”?

michaelt 9y ago
License proliferation leads to complicated license compatibility relationships [1]. Imagine someone wanted to, say, provide native support in GNUradio - as has been done for the RTL-SDR. It's impossible unless you relicense one or the other. Of course, the code's being given away for free; you could argue one shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth. And it's quite possible no-one would attempt such a merge even if it was permitted by the license. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_proliferation#License_compatibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_proliferation#License_...

bringtheaction 9y ago

The license is MIT but not MIT. It’s the MIT license with two additional conditions imposed; - The one you mentioned about citation. - “The Software is not used by, in cooperation with, or on behalf of any armed forces, intelligence agencies, reconnaissance agencies, defense agencies, offense agencies or any supplier, contractor, or research associated.” https://github.com/seemoo-lab/mobisys2018_nexmon_software_defined_radio/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/seemoo-lab/mobisys2018_nexmon_software_de... Even just the one about citation is problematic but IMO the condition about armed forces and so on is even worse. I kind of see where they are coming from but I wish people just used standard MIT and acknowledged that yes your software might end up being used for something that you do not agree with morally. And if they are going to impose such restrictions, why stop there? Why not also say that you cannot use the software to transmit for example child pornography? And how about saying that you cannot use it to spread false information, fake news etc? I would be exaggerating, but not much, if I were to say that as soon as you introduce one or more moral restrictions into a software license, you are implicitly saying that any moral concern not mentioned is ok. How about terrorism? They didn’t say anything about terrorism so I guess using their software for terror is fine as long as the terrorists are not an “armed force”, an intelligence agency etc. Technology has infitinite uses, a whole host of which are good, probably as many that are bad, and likewise an uncountable amount of uses that are either neither or both, and very many that will be one thing for some people and the other for other people. It should in my opinion not be the job of a software license to pass moral judgement. Either you release your software for anyone to use for any purpose under the terms of an unmodified license accepted by the community or you might as well not bother trying to be open source at all.

viraptor 9y ago
> Why not also say that you cannot use the software to transmit for example child pornography? Because it's already illegal, so the point would be a noop. On the other hand, contracting for the army is legal and one of the places where licenses may be reviewed/enforced internally. Same for terrorism. (Also, why would terrorists respect the license)
- em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
  But as parent said, "Technology has infitinite uses", so what about the other infinite uses?
  - davrosthedalek 9y ago
    Well I guess you can divide them in illegal uses (license does not matter) and legal uses (license could matter). I guess from all the legal uses, the authors disliked military etc. use enough to exclude it. Their choice.
raarts 9y ago
I applaud them for taking these things into consideration, and trying to fight the bad forces in the universe.
- ferongr 9y ago
  Is this sarcasm?
  - inteleng 9y ago
    Is this sarcasm?
    - vokep 9y ago
      Is this sarcasm?

davrosthedalek 9y ago

It's their work, it's their prerogative to select the license. If you don't like it, leave it.

ris 9y ago
Incorrect - not all licenses are legally valid or enforcible.