3 ms·
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
by 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 agoThe 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 agoIf 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 agoMany 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.