7 ms·
LWN debates whether using GPL software on missiles counts as distribution
- dattaway 14y agoI'm sure they would be happy to quickly distribute the source code on replacement missile along with a bugfix.
- einhverfr 14y ago"Thank you for your request for source code. We believe the product you received from us was defective. Please give me your GPS coordinates so we can send a replacement product, with source code, to you stat. While we believe this does not count as 'distribution' under the GPL and may indeed be fair use, we do stand by our products and are happy to replace them when they fail."
- dspillett 14y agoThe GPL only states you have to release the source to people you distribute the code to, not directly make it publicly available. If the missiles work well enough when "delivered", there will be no one left eligible to demand access to the source! Assuming that they are not selling them to someone rather than firing them at someone, of course.
- excuse-me 14y agoYou have to supply the code used in products that you distribute - hence the whole Tivo issue. So the argument is - have you distributed the missile to the firers or to the target? That's what the AGPL sorts out. Is being hit by a missil a 'service'
- ErrantX 14y agoOne additional consideration; does being hit by a missile constitute unsolicited mailing?
- Symmetry 14y agoThis is sort of hilarious, but I'm pretty sure that firing a missile at someone doesn't count as giving them code. Its not your intent that they're able to use the missile for their own purposes, for example.
- excuse-me 14y agoYour intent isn't important - it's the intent of the person licensing the software. I publish my shark+laser beam integration library in the hope that other evil geniuses will use it and improve on it. Together we can produce an opensource shark+laser beam system that is more secure and reliable than the commercial offering. When you are an evil genius you have to worry about these things.
- cliffbean 14y agoYes, the internet is good at selecting pedantic people for extended discussions of absurdities. However, this doesn't have much significance for whether GPL-style licensing provisions are preferable in the regular world.
- ma2rten 14y agoI think it was intended to be funny.
- parfe 14y agoHN managed to generate 22 comments discussing a 6 line lighthearted hypothetical musing on LWN. >pedantic people for extended discussions of absurdities. And here we are!
- Karunamon 14y agoI'm more amazed that even a semi-humorous topic gathered any significant quantity of upvotes, let alone enough to get frontpaged. That said, this is the silliest I've been grinning today, so thanks all :)
- amoore 14y agoIt certainly sounds at least like export to me. Are they therefore illegally exporting munitions and crypto?
- thedeuce 14y ago;_; what a waste of peoples lives to even make something this absurd a discussion..
- unimpressive 14y agoFirst of all: This is a stupid question. Second: The solution is simple, copy a tarball of the source to CD and throw it inside the casing of the missile. Add rocket fuel to compensate for the added weight. EDIT: Third: That was an intentionally stupid answer.
- jmj42 14y agoI think, on the other hand, that it's a very interesting thought experiment. While the realities of the original question are a bit absurd, the question does give one the opportunity to think about and discuss some interesting legal edge cases (government copyright infringement, and the implication thereof) Further, it's fun to theorize about possible solutions to OSS licensing issues: Deliver the source via special courier (military strike team); deliver via the same means as the compiled code (a second missile); etc.
- simonbrown 14y agoRelated question: If a (non-weapon) device is shipped containing a GPL-derived program which includes a copy of the source, but destroys it on arrival, does that obey the license?
- jhdevos 14y agoThat's ridiculous! Obviously, use a micro SD card, it's much smaller and easier to stick somewhere. Come to think of it, would that actually be heat resistant enough to allow the receiver to be able to read it? Hmm, perhaps some more research is necessary after all.
- pilom 14y agoThe drones the original article talks about aren't missles, they aren't even predators or global hawks. They are the target practice drones the navy shoots with their own missiles for air to air combat exercises.
- ben1040 14y agoIncluding a copy of the source with a missile reminds me of the "McDonnell-Douglas Warranty Card" joke that is probably nearly as old as the Internet itself: http://www.cartalk.com/content/mcdonnell-douglas-warranty-card http://www.cartalk.com/content/mcdonnell-douglas-warranty-ca...
- dchest 14y agoWhich reminded me of the picture of an American cluster bomb dispenser I took in Belgrade military museum: "Mishandling may void terms of the warranty" -- https://twitter.com/dchest/status/204289416779403264/photo/1/large https://twitter.com/dchest/status/204289416779403264/photo/1....
- planetguy 14y agoCan't be that old, has to post-date the declassification of the F-117A in 1988. On the other hand, has to predate the subsuming of McDonell-Douglas into Boeing in 1997. I was going to try to get more specific by figuring out when exactly Grumman (maker of the F-14) and General Dynamics (maker of the F-16) got subsumed into McDonnell-Douglas, but it turns out that they never did, they wound up in Lockheed. So whoever wrote this clearly didn't know all that much about fighter aircraft.
- excuse-me 14y agoThe joke has been re-written and re-told with new aircraft names many-many times - it dates back to at least Korea.
- sigzero 14y agoRMS should think about this form of delivery in GPLv4. j/k
- tibbon 14y agoI personally wouldn't mind the GPL being revised to disallow weapons of war using the code.
- mindcrime 14y agoFirst, do you really think people creating weapons of war would bother obeying the GPL? And secondly, that would result in the GPL no longer being complaint with the Open Source Definition[1], which does not allow "field of endeavour" restrictions. Whether or not the FSF cares about that point is questionable (I doubt they care much) but it could make life more difficult for F/OSS developers in general. [1]: http://oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/perens.html http://oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/perens.html
- lmm 14y agoThe FSF have what seems like a well-considered position on such things: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/hessla.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/hessla.html
- mindcrime 14y agoTrue, and just to be clear, when I said "I doubt they care very much" I meant "I doubt they care very much about not being compliant with the OSD." It does, of course, make sense that they make have a position that overlaps with a point from the OSD, for their own reasons.
- tibbon 14y agoI do suppose it would be better to just be able to force them to obey the GPL (and distribute their code), than disallow them to use it.
- BrainInAJar 14y agoOpen source is great; can't create something? Bitch about licensing!
- ChristianMarks 14y agoIt's time to begin distributing copyrighted content on missiles.
- sneak 14y agoHa! Everybody knows that laws for mortals don't apply to the defense industry.
- tzs 14y agoEven if it is, the first sale doctrine would likely apply and so it would not require the permission of the copyright owner. Whether this is the case or not depends on whether or not the Navy is making copies, or just passing along copies they received from a contractor.
- Spooky23 14y agoThe government has the power of eminent domain, so they can just appropriate the property for it's market value. ($0)
- Rhino55 14y agoThis is really simple: there is likely no copyright treaty between sender and recipient jurisdictions. So no court exists that would be able to resolve a copyright dispute. In the case where some rogue paramilitary group starts using GPL software to, say deliver payload to a target within a single jurisdiction, the delivery itself is highly illegal. Related case: delivery of non-weapon contraband such as illegal police scanner. Not only is GPL violated, but the device itself is illegal to posses.