3 ms·

What is the counter-balance to this memo? How do F/OSS developers ensure their work never ends up being used by the DoD for any purpose whatsoever? As a F/OSS

What is the counter-balance to this memo? How do F/OSS developers ensure their work never ends up being used by the DoD for any purpose whatsoever? As a F/OSS developer I am ideologically opposed to my work ever being used by the US' DoD or any of its organizations. Has anyone successfully built F/OSS products with a license that disallows use by military organizations, and if so - what is involved in maintaining that situation?

detaro 5y ago
There's a few licenses like that, but I'm not aware of a major project using them and they also don't get recognized as Open-Source licenses, due to the criteria for those banning restrictions on specific use cases.
- boffinAudio 5y ago
  After some research I've come to the conclusion that the License can't have such restrictions and still be considered 'free', but a "Terms of Use" clause elsewhere in the code can be used to restrict how programs built from the free code can be used. Quite an interesting conundrum, this - but I suppose one that is simply the state of things: if you want your stuff to be free and open, you cannot release it to the world and expect/demand that it will not be weaponized, as is the case with any and all technology. Sobering.
  - kragen 5y ago
    No, that is not correct. If a clause is limiting how programs built from the free code can be copied (or sold, imported, publicly performed, etc., the various exclusive rights granted under copyright, which do not include "used") then that clause is part of the license. It is perfectly legal for a license to discriminate against a field of use such as weaponization, in which case it fails to be free software or open source software.
    - boffinAudio 5y ago
      Right, thanks for the clarification and it does in fact make sense. Sobering times for those of us who don't want our F/OSS products used by the war machine.
      - kragen 5y ago
        Just write all the documentation in Chinese or Hindi, maybe.
        boffinAudio 5y ago
        I guess its time to learn a Russian-based programming language...
        kragen 5y ago
        Or Arabic, like Ramsey Nasser's beautiful قلب: https://nas.sr/%D9%82%D9%84%D8%A8/ https://nas.sr/%D9%82%D9%84%D8%A8/
        rurban 5y ago
        Just write all your variables in Cyrillic. Nobody will recognize it, and all hell will break loose on older compilers
marcus_holmes 5y ago
It's your code. You own the rights to it. You can say exactly who uses it if you like. You can add a clause to the licence saying "the following people/organisations are specifically prohibited from using this code: US DoD, etc" - you may want to word this better to prevent loopholes, but that's the gist of it.
- MaxBarraclough 5y ago
  As detaro and kragen have pointed out, any software licence which prohibits military use is by definition neither a Free Software licence (under the FSF definition) [0] nor an Open Source licence (under the OSI definition). [1] [0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#NoMilitary https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#NoMilitary [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14864288 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14864288
  - marcus_holmes 5y ago
    Neither of those things stops the GP from specifying who can use their code, only from classifying their code as FOSS if they do.
kragen 5y ago
No, you cannot license software as free or open source software while discriminating against a particular organization or field of use. You can write your own such license, but it will fail to meet criteria like the Open Source Definition, the Free Software Definition, and the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Also, the DoD in particular has sovereign immunity, so if they infringe your copyright, you somehow find out about it, and you sue them for it in the US, they can just refuse the lawsuit. The best you could do in that case is something like a WTO lawsuit, which, well, I don't think you can get by with less than a million dollars in legal fees. You could sue somebody like Boeing or Lockheed Martin but you're still going to have one hell of an uphill battle there. However, those organizations would probably prefer not to spend tens of thousands of dollars to fight your lawsuit, so they may comply with the license even if they would probably win in court.
- _n_b_ 5y ago
  > Also, the DoD in particular has sovereign immunity, The federal government has waived its sovereign immunity via statute for specific kinds of lawsuits, including for copyright infringement via 28 U.S.C. 1498(b). There is also a school of thought that says that copyright infringement violates the Fifth Amendment's takings clause, but that has yet to be endorsed (or rejected) convincingly at a federal level. > The best you could do in that case is something like a WTO lawsuit There are WTO disputes, but these can only be brought by one WTO member (e.g., a sovereign government) against another and generally the outcome of WTO disputes does not involve compensation.
  - kragen 5y ago
    Thank you for the corrections!
killjoywashere 5y ago
The DoD is huge. It's larger than most US states. Would you exclude Cerner's healthcare records systems? Fuji? Agfa? Would you exclude the Veteran's Administration hospitals? Would you exclude the agencies responsible for safe water, forestry, and sewage treatment plants on bases? Where, exactly, would you draw that line, and how would you ensure DoD is able to replicate your logic so as to end at the conclusions you expect?
tablespoon 5y ago
> How do F/OSS developers ensure their work never ends up being used by the DoD for any purpose whatsoever? Simple: stop being a F/OSS developer, and only license your non-F/OSS software to the organizations you choose.
skinkestek 5y ago
For a counterpoint I'm proud to have served and proud to have supported software that the army bought from us. In my mind the alternative to the police and an army isn't peace but the rule of the strongest. Ask any pacifist country that stood in Hitlers way. (That said I never signed up for "peacekeeping" missions abroad how much I'd like to try to serve in the field: I'm principled too)

detaro 5y ago

There's a few licenses like that, but I'm not aware of a major project using them and they also don't get recognized as Open-Source licenses, due to the criteria for those banning restrictions on specific use cases.

boffinAudio 5y ago
After some research I've come to the conclusion that the License can't have such restrictions and still be considered 'free', but a "Terms of Use" clause elsewhere in the code can be used to restrict how programs built from the free code can be used. Quite an interesting conundrum, this - but I suppose one that is simply the state of things: if you want your stuff to be free and open, you cannot release it to the world and expect/demand that it will not be weaponized, as is the case with any and all technology. Sobering.
- kragen 5y ago
  No, that is not correct. If a clause is limiting how programs built from the free code can be copied (or sold, imported, publicly performed, etc., the various exclusive rights granted under copyright, which do not include "used") then that clause is part of the license. It is perfectly legal for a license to discriminate against a field of use such as weaponization, in which case it fails to be free software or open source software.
  - boffinAudio 5y ago
    Right, thanks for the clarification and it does in fact make sense. Sobering times for those of us who don't want our F/OSS products used by the war machine.
    - kragen 5y ago
      Just write all the documentation in Chinese or Hindi, maybe.
      - boffinAudio 5y ago
        I guess its time to learn a Russian-based programming language...
        kragen 5y ago
        Or Arabic, like Ramsey Nasser's beautiful قلب: https://nas.sr/%D9%82%D9%84%D8%A8/ https://nas.sr/%D9%82%D9%84%D8%A8/
        rurban 5y ago
        Just write all your variables in Cyrillic. Nobody will recognize it, and all hell will break loose on older compilers

marcus_holmes 5y ago

It's your code. You own the rights to it. You can say exactly who uses it if you like. You can add a clause to the licence saying "the following people/organisations are specifically prohibited from using this code: US DoD, etc" - you may want to word this better to prevent loopholes, but that's the gist of it.

MaxBarraclough 5y ago
As detaro and kragen have pointed out, any software licence which prohibits military use is by definition neither a Free Software licence (under the FSF definition) [0] nor an Open Source licence (under the OSI definition). [1] [0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#NoMilitary https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#NoMilitary [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14864288 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14864288
- marcus_holmes 5y ago
  Neither of those things stops the GP from specifying who can use their code, only from classifying their code as FOSS if they do.

kragen 5y ago

No, you cannot license software as free or open source software while discriminating against a particular organization or field of use. You can write your own such license, but it will fail to meet criteria like the Open Source Definition, the Free Software Definition, and the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Also, the DoD in particular has sovereign immunity, so if they infringe your copyright, you somehow find out about it, and you sue them for it in the US, they can just refuse the lawsuit. The best you could do in that case is something like a WTO lawsuit, which, well, I don't think you can get by with less than a million dollars in legal fees. You could sue somebody like Boeing or Lockheed Martin but you're still going to have one hell of an uphill battle there. However, those organizations would probably prefer not to spend tens of thousands of dollars to fight your lawsuit, so they may comply with the license even if they would probably win in court.

_n_b_ 5y ago
> Also, the DoD in particular has sovereign immunity, The federal government has waived its sovereign immunity via statute for specific kinds of lawsuits, including for copyright infringement via 28 U.S.C. 1498(b). There is also a school of thought that says that copyright infringement violates the Fifth Amendment's takings clause, but that has yet to be endorsed (or rejected) convincingly at a federal level. > The best you could do in that case is something like a WTO lawsuit There are WTO disputes, but these can only be brought by one WTO member (e.g., a sovereign government) against another and generally the outcome of WTO disputes does not involve compensation.
- kragen 5y ago
  Thank you for the corrections!

killjoywashere 5y ago

The DoD is huge. It's larger than most US states. Would you exclude Cerner's healthcare records systems? Fuji? Agfa? Would you exclude the Veteran's Administration hospitals? Would you exclude the agencies responsible for safe water, forestry, and sewage treatment plants on bases? Where, exactly, would you draw that line, and how would you ensure DoD is able to replicate your logic so as to end at the conclusions you expect?

tablespoon 5y ago

> How do F/OSS developers ensure their work never ends up being used by the DoD for any purpose whatsoever? Simple: stop being a F/OSS developer, and only license your non-F/OSS software to the organizations you choose.

skinkestek 5y ago

For a counterpoint I'm proud to have served and proud to have supported software that the army bought from us. In my mind the alternative to the police and an army isn't peace but the rule of the strongest. Ask any pacifist country that stood in Hitlers way. (That said I never signed up for "peacekeeping" missions abroad how much I'd like to try to serve in the field: I'm principled too)