6 ms·

Having worked in the killing machines industry, this is not a win. This is a loss. GPL should also read: "The software must not be used for the purposes of wa

Having worked in the killing machines industry, this is not a win. This is a loss. GPL should also read: "The software must not be used for the purposes of warfare or to inflict suffering on any individual." EDIT: I can see America has woken judging by the number of downvotes being received.

bitcracker 14y ago
I am also against warfare but if Linux (or OSS in general) helps to enhance the security and realiability of weapons so that they don't kill civil people accidently then it's ok. It's not Linux or GPL what makes things good or bad - it's the people who use it. If you wan't GPL to be non-violent then you also have to forbid GPL usage in embedded systems, because air planes, cars etc. also can kill people. And don't forget that Linux users normally pay back to the community. Look at SE-Linux, or SE-Android, for example.
- gouranga 14y ago
  Weapons always kill civilians. My point is that if it can be used to kill a person, then I am not fussed. The fact that it is intended to kill people, then I am fussed. A car is not inherently designed to kill people. A drone is.
  - dagw 14y ago
    A drone is designed for un-manned flight, nothing more or less. Sure you can strap weapons to it and use it to make it easier to kill people, but you can do the same with a car. But you can also strap cameras and sensors to a drone and use them to do neat science (like these people: http://espo.nasa.gov/missions/hs3/ http://espo.nasa.gov/missions/hs3/)
    - gouranga 14y ago
      That's splitting hairs. A military drone is either intended to: 1. Blow people up or shoot them. 2. Find out who to blow up or shoot. People don't drive cars around like that other than the military (therefore point demonstrated) and mad max...
      - mkr-hn 14y ago
        UAVs are a tool just like any other: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle#Uses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle#Uses Some of them are used for war, but not all. I'm assuming the companies that make "good" drones also make military drones.
  - bitcracker 14y ago
    Please don't misunderstand me: Weapons are bad. But if we can't avoid them then it is better to use the best option to make bad things a little better.
    - gouranga 14y ago
      That's a fair point. I'll give you that.
krschultz 14y ago
How does that work? It's going to be impossible to draw the line. With that clause you clearly couldn't put the software into the guidance computer on a warhead or the missile launch system itself. But what about a system on the weapons launching platform that isn't a weapon. Is the computer running the engines on a navy cargo ship 'used for the purposes of warfare'? What if the system controlled by the software is completely incidental, or defensive in nature? The fire control system saves lives, is that 'for the purposes of warfare'? And what about the computers used to design weapons? Is an engineer working on a weapon using the software 'for the purposes of warfare'? And what about the accountant at the company that makes weapons, is he using the software for the purposes of warfare even if he doesn't know anything about the weapons? Is the machine shop that gets 1% of its business from selling parts that end up in weapons using the software for the purposes of warfare? It's impossible to make that distinction in any meaningful way.
- gouranga 14y ago
  That's all fluff. It's pretty black and white if you engage the brain: If a device is intended to directly harm someone intentionally, then there should be a restrictive clause. Computers that design weapons aren't specifically used to design weapons. Weapons are specifically designed to kill people so therefore the clause should apply.
  - Xylakant 14y ago
    Should machines that are used to create weapons part of that clause? Is a scout drone a weapon? Is the control software for that drone a weapon? What if it's a scout drone? What if this scout drone is used for reconnaissance by the coast guard to find criminals? What if it's used to find ships in peril and provide fast assistance? There are some black and white extremes, but there's also a lot of grey in between. I'd rather prefer my license to stay out of that mess. The GPL stipulates that apart from the restrictions in the GPL, no further restrictions can be applied to a software. But you're certainly free to license your code under a "no-weapons" clause, I just don't think that the GPL is the right place to do that.
mgunes 14y ago
There was an actual attempt to add a "No military use" clause to the GPL (effectively making it a different license) a few years ago: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1683750/posts http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1683750/posts
kokey 14y ago
I don't know, somehow I would feel better being shot to death by flying drones running Linux instead of Windows. After years of having to suffer with Outlook, Exchange, Sharepoint and Internet Explorer it would really just feel like the end of a long torturous assault on my existence by Microsoft.
- gouranga 14y ago
  Sharepoint yes. The other products are ok :)
rlpb 14y ago
This is contrary to certain definitions of freedom. For example, Debian's requirements[1] are that "The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor". As others have said "warfare" and "suffering" are too hard to define anyway. [1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
- gouranga 14y ago
  I think it's pretty clear. The definitions have been made ambiguous by the permanent state of military action across the world. We're desensitised to it.
rwallace 14y ago
OT but prompted by the above: What exactly is the threshold on this site nowadays to be able to downvote comments?
seanc722 14y ago
It is a win for Linux, just may not be for humanity.. But A lot of the software wouldn't be created for offensive weapons and they are going to still be made whether they be run under linux or some other OS.
eswangren 14y ago
Yes, we should all just hold hands, sing kumbaya, and subsist on the gum drops and jelly beans that rain from the sky.
easp 14y ago
I increacingly question the notion that there are any just wars, but I don't really see how such a clause is practical or enforceable. Even if it were practical and enforceable at keeping "evil" from co-opting code contributed by "good," it would also reduce opportunities for "good" to co-opt code contributed by "evil." I'll point out that the technology we are using to have this discussion was underwritten by the military. The military dumped a lot of money into integrated circuits before commercial applications could fund Moore's Law, and the Internet was also the outcome of a military project. You can argue that there should be other means to fund such advancements, and I'd agree, but this is where we are now.
- gouranga 14y ago
  Thank you for some sensible discussion. I think you issue some good counterpoints to my original point which I can't argue with.
metrop0219 14y ago
I agree with you completely.

bitcracker 14y ago

I am also against warfare but if Linux (or OSS in general) helps to enhance the security and realiability of weapons so that they don't kill civil people accidently then it's ok. It's not Linux or GPL what makes things good or bad - it's the people who use it. If you wan't GPL to be non-violent then you also have to forbid GPL usage in embedded systems, because air planes, cars etc. also can kill people. And don't forget that Linux users normally pay back to the community. Look at SE-Linux, or SE-Android, for example.

gouranga 14y ago
Weapons always kill civilians. My point is that if it can be used to kill a person, then I am not fussed. The fact that it is intended to kill people, then I am fussed. A car is not inherently designed to kill people. A drone is.
- dagw 14y ago
  A drone is designed for un-manned flight, nothing more or less. Sure you can strap weapons to it and use it to make it easier to kill people, but you can do the same with a car. But you can also strap cameras and sensors to a drone and use them to do neat science (like these people: http://espo.nasa.gov/missions/hs3/ http://espo.nasa.gov/missions/hs3/)
  - gouranga 14y ago
    That's splitting hairs. A military drone is either intended to: 1. Blow people up or shoot them. 2. Find out who to blow up or shoot. People don't drive cars around like that other than the military (therefore point demonstrated) and mad max...
    - mkr-hn 14y ago
      UAVs are a tool just like any other: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle#Uses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle#Uses Some of them are used for war, but not all. I'm assuming the companies that make "good" drones also make military drones.
- bitcracker 14y ago
  Please don't misunderstand me: Weapons are bad. But if we can't avoid them then it is better to use the best option to make bad things a little better.
  - gouranga 14y ago
    That's a fair point. I'll give you that.

krschultz 14y ago

How does that work? It's going to be impossible to draw the line. With that clause you clearly couldn't put the software into the guidance computer on a warhead or the missile launch system itself. But what about a system on the weapons launching platform that isn't a weapon. Is the computer running the engines on a navy cargo ship 'used for the purposes of warfare'? What if the system controlled by the software is completely incidental, or defensive in nature? The fire control system saves lives, is that 'for the purposes of warfare'? And what about the computers used to design weapons? Is an engineer working on a weapon using the software 'for the purposes of warfare'? And what about the accountant at the company that makes weapons, is he using the software for the purposes of warfare even if he doesn't know anything about the weapons? Is the machine shop that gets 1% of its business from selling parts that end up in weapons using the software for the purposes of warfare? It's impossible to make that distinction in any meaningful way.

gouranga 14y ago
That's all fluff. It's pretty black and white if you engage the brain: If a device is intended to directly harm someone intentionally, then there should be a restrictive clause. Computers that design weapons aren't specifically used to design weapons. Weapons are specifically designed to kill people so therefore the clause should apply.
- Xylakant 14y ago
  Should machines that are used to create weapons part of that clause? Is a scout drone a weapon? Is the control software for that drone a weapon? What if it's a scout drone? What if this scout drone is used for reconnaissance by the coast guard to find criminals? What if it's used to find ships in peril and provide fast assistance? There are some black and white extremes, but there's also a lot of grey in between. I'd rather prefer my license to stay out of that mess. The GPL stipulates that apart from the restrictions in the GPL, no further restrictions can be applied to a software. But you're certainly free to license your code under a "no-weapons" clause, I just don't think that the GPL is the right place to do that.

mgunes 14y ago

There was an actual attempt to add a "No military use" clause to the GPL (effectively making it a different license) a few years ago: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1683750/posts http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1683750/posts

kokey 14y ago

I don't know, somehow I would feel better being shot to death by flying drones running Linux instead of Windows. After years of having to suffer with Outlook, Exchange, Sharepoint and Internet Explorer it would really just feel like the end of a long torturous assault on my existence by Microsoft.

gouranga 14y ago
Sharepoint yes. The other products are ok :)

rlpb 14y ago

This is contrary to certain definitions of freedom. For example, Debian's requirements[1] are that "The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor". As others have said "warfare" and "suffering" are too hard to define anyway. [1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines

gouranga 14y ago
I think it's pretty clear. The definitions have been made ambiguous by the permanent state of military action across the world. We're desensitised to it.

rwallace 14y ago

OT but prompted by the above: What exactly is the threshold on this site nowadays to be able to downvote comments?

seanc722 14y ago

It is a win for Linux, just may not be for humanity.. But A lot of the software wouldn't be created for offensive weapons and they are going to still be made whether they be run under linux or some other OS.

eswangren 14y ago

Yes, we should all just hold hands, sing kumbaya, and subsist on the gum drops and jelly beans that rain from the sky.

easp 14y ago

I increacingly question the notion that there are any just wars, but I don't really see how such a clause is practical or enforceable. Even if it were practical and enforceable at keeping "evil" from co-opting code contributed by "good," it would also reduce opportunities for "good" to co-opt code contributed by "evil." I'll point out that the technology we are using to have this discussion was underwritten by the military. The military dumped a lot of money into integrated circuits before commercial applications could fund Moore's Law, and the Internet was also the outcome of a military project. You can argue that there should be other means to fund such advancements, and I'd agree, but this is where we are now.

gouranga 14y ago
Thank you for some sensible discussion. I think you issue some good counterpoints to my original point which I can't argue with.

metrop0219 14y ago

I agree with you completely.