3 ms·

I'm the author of some popular open source software, but I don't have any illusions about the relative ease of building my software. This author sounds like th

by daenz 7y ago

I'm the author of some popular open source software, but I don't have any illusions about the relative ease of building my software. This author sounds like they are trying throw their weight around, but I'm not sure they realize how much software is easily reproducible, given the right incentives, with nothing more than a spec. Open source is a convenience, and that's why people use it. Pretending that you can have serious influence over what companies are allowed to do with your software, outside of a very narrow and legally well-defined area, is seriously misguided.

DangitBobby 7y ago
If you are making a new missile system and all of the free (as in beer) software you want says you can't use it to kill people, then you suddenly have to pay a lot more money to make your missile system. That seems like a good thing to me. I don't see how you could claim that it wouldn't be influencial if this became standard practice.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  The question is whether it could ever become standard practice, or whether "no-killing-people" software would inevitably just become a hobby ecosystem that nobody seriously considers running a business with.
  - DangitBobby 7y ago
    If people were actually committed to enforcing the ethics they espouse then there wouldn't really be a question, if such options were available. I agree that these are the things the discussion is ultimately about, and free software foundations taking it seriously might make it possible to be more than just a hobby ecosystem.
- daenz 7y ago
  >then you suddenly have to pay a lot more money to make your missile I assume you're talking about a government or government contractor, because anybody else wouldn't care about "licensing" if they're building a system to kill people. In the former case, "pay a lot more money" means spending more of everyone else's tax dollars, which they definitely won't have a problem with.
  - DangitBobby 7y ago
    Many advanced weapons systems are made by companies like Ratheon. I guess I'm operating under the assumptions that behavior under capitalism can be influenced by pricing, but government vendors may be a bad example.

by daenz 7y ago

DangitBobby 7y ago

If you are making a new missile system and all of the free (as in beer) software you want says you can't use it to kill people, then you suddenly have to pay a lot more money to make your missile system. That seems like a good thing to me. I don't see how you could claim that it wouldn't be influencial if this became standard practice.

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
The question is whether it could ever become standard practice, or whether "no-killing-people" software would inevitably just become a hobby ecosystem that nobody seriously considers running a business with.
- DangitBobby 7y ago
  If people were actually committed to enforcing the ethics they espouse then there wouldn't really be a question, if such options were available. I agree that these are the things the discussion is ultimately about, and free software foundations taking it seriously might make it possible to be more than just a hobby ecosystem.
daenz 7y ago
>then you suddenly have to pay a lot more money to make your missile I assume you're talking about a government or government contractor, because anybody else wouldn't care about "licensing" if they're building a system to kill people. In the former case, "pay a lot more money" means spending more of everyone else's tax dollars, which they definitely won't have a problem with.
- DangitBobby 7y ago
  Many advanced weapons systems are made by companies like Ratheon. I guess I'm operating under the assumptions that behavior under capitalism can be influenced by pricing, but government vendors may be a bad example.