5 ms·

Now I wonder if the GPL license should have a "do not use for killing people" clause in it.

lutorm 12y ago
Then it would not be free... but I wonder if shooting a linux-powered missile counts as "redistribution" under the GPL, so that you would then be forced to give the target a copy of your software?
- kijin 12y ago
  At the very least, I guess that would be a good reason to avoid implementing the missile control software as a kernel module. Or maybe not, since the missile is clearly intended to be destroyed upon reaching the target.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- rdmckenzie 12y ago
  I'm sure that adding a small disk with the source code to the warhead would be an acceptable and valued solution.
- qbrass 12y ago
  They'll send you another missile with the source code just as soon as they get your location.
Jtsummers 12y ago
There are already pieces of software whose licenses preclude military use. One I saw once was a smalltalk implementation. EDIT: my recollection was off. They don't strictly bar it from those fields but may require a non-free license. http://www.exept.de/en/products/smalltalkx/download http://www.exept.de/en/products/smalltalkx/download
- TallGuyShort 12y ago
  Parts of the CERN Colt library expressly forbid military applications: http://acs.lbl.gov/software/colt/license.html http://acs.lbl.gov/software/colt/license.html. It's probably impossible to enforce, but it's a noble statement, IMO.
  - Sanddancer 12y ago
    The problem is that the world's not so black and white. For example, the Army Corps of Engineering does substantial work restoring ecologically sensitive areas, maintaining harbors, etc. Would they be precluded from using this software to generate histograms related to a wetlands restoration project?
    - Jtsummers 12y ago
      I think that's part of the reason for Smalltalk/X's less-than-full ban. Ambiguity is removed because potential licensees can tell them what their intended use is. On the other hand, perhaps we should be breaking organizations out of the DoD umbrella. Do we need domestic public servant driven civil engineering projects to be under the Army? Maybe a Civil Corps of Engineers should be established to take over their non-defense projects (or more realistically, spun off).
mpyne 12y ago
If it had a "Field of Use" restriction it wouldn't be Free Software.
ineedtosleep 12y ago
It would go against their definition of "free software"[1]: A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms: The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- rectangletangle 12y ago
  Yeah, but killing people also goes against freedom.
  - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
    To be fair, there have been legitimate freedom fighters whose battles would be considered just by many of us even if blood was spilled. I'm not sure how de-arming would help the US right now, but I understand that there are a lot who would argue that the US has too many weapons (as opposed to having any at all).
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - hueving 12y ago
    The license doesn't say it must be used to promote freedom. It just says the users must have certain freedoms. Those are two very different things.
steve19 12y ago
There is also a rifle that runs Linux. It allows you to easily hit a target at 1000 yards in high wind with no skill. I have used it. If you made an OS that disallowed military use / 'killing people' you would exclude GPS satellites (used to guide smart bombs etc.). It would disallow military delivered aid (same US Navy ships that deliver aid can also be used to deliver munitions / support a fleet). It would disallow legitimate defense of any country.
- aaronem 12y ago
  > I have used it. How was it? I've heard a lot of really impressive claims; I'd be interested to know whether the hardware lives up to the hype.
ams6110 12y ago
Reminds me of Crockford's JSON license: "The software shall be used for Good, not Evil" [1] and his story of how IBM objected to that, and he wrote them a special exception "I give permission for IBM, its customers, partners, and minions, to use JSLint for evil." [2] 1: http://www.json.org/license.html http://www.json.org/license.html 2: http://dev.hasenj.org/post/3272592502/ibm-and-its-minions http://dev.hasenj.org/post/3272592502/ibm-and-its-minions
- executive 12y ago
  Makes sense. IBM tech did power the Holocaust.
  - ronjouch 12y ago
    For details on executive's comment, see http://www.amazon.com/IBM-Holocaust-Strategic-Alliance-Corporation/dp/0914153102 http://www.amazon.com/IBM-Holocaust-Strategic-Alliance-Corpo...
  - aaronem 12y ago
    As well as the Apollo program, in the form of the Saturn V instrument unit. I suppose it never ceases being necessary to reiterate that no technology is either good or evil, and it's not applied science which carries moral weight, but the uses to which people put it.
    - mnordhoff 12y ago
      Indeed, and IBM are a collection of people who made, and still make, decisions about the uses to which their technology will be put. Technology does not amorally have the German census department -- or the Apollo program -- on speed dial.
      - camus2 12y ago
        Thats why USA welcomed so many nazi scientists right after WW2,operation paper clip...
superuser2 12y ago
Apple's EULA prohibits the use of Apple products to run nuclear equipment. This is often cited by proponents of free software as an example of the Big Brother-ish restrictions they are trying to eliminate from the world.
- aaronem 12y ago
  Do they also object to the clearly stated restrictions, which TI places on its general-purpose microcontroller lines, against their use in life-critical equipment? TI's reasoning is that they don't want to be sued because someone designed, say, a fly-by-wire control system which uses COTS MSP430 parts, and then accidentally built one with a bogus MSP that went toes-up on final and brought a jetliner down short of the runway. It's not that they are averse to their parts being used in life-critical applications; it's that they have specific lines for that purpose, consisting of parts which have undergone much heavier and more stringent testing as compared to the general-purpose lines, and if a designer of life-critical hardware can't be bothered to get in touch with TI and arrange to source parts from one of those lines, then TI's not going to be held responsible for a bad result -- nor should they. I dare say Apple's reasoning is similar. It's not that they actually expect (e.g.) iTunes to comprise a critical component of a nuclear weapon's operating software, inasmuch as such a device has any; rather, it's that if someone does for some lunatic reason actually build an iTunes module which happens to set off a 1Kt IND when you play the same Lady Gaga track ten times in a row, Apple's not going to be held responsible. Granted, it's a particularly stupid and pointless example of gratuitous lawyerese, but the underlying reasoning is probably very similar to TI's. (Although I do rather doubt that Apple makes a special version of iTunes which is certified for nuclear-weapons use.)
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - elektronjunge 12y ago
    Actually they release a version of iTunes with that clause removed for use in the U.S. national labs. Its unclear in the license whether its direct use to run the nukes or all nuclear related things. So the US government requested a release with an amended license and got it. Source: worked at Los Alamos National Lab for 5 years.
reality_czech 12y ago
The killing part is fine. The GPL doesn't impose any restrictions on that. However, the next the next version of the GPL will mandate that UAVs broadcast this continuously: http://www.jwz.org/hacks/why-cooperation-with-rms-is-impossible.mp3 http://www.jwz.org/hacks/why-cooperation-with-rms-is-impossi...
rainmaking 12y ago
The no-kill-GPL would just collapse under the additional complexity and people would just end up not using software licensed under it. For example, what kind of killing do you mean? Could you sue a doctor for using a medical device containing no-kill-GPL software for losing a patient? What about abortions? We've already put the question of when life starts into the GPL and haven't even started covering military use. Better to follow the good old adage of engineering and use the right tool for the job. Use copyleft licenses to further software freedom, and use activism to achieve your political goals.

Then it would not be free... but I wonder if shooting a linux-powered missile counts as "redistribution" under the GPL, so that you would then be forced to give the target a copy of your software?

kijin 12y ago
At the very least, I guess that would be a good reason to avoid implementing the missile control software as a kernel module. Or maybe not, since the missile is clearly intended to be destroyed upon reaching the target.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
rdmckenzie 12y ago
I'm sure that adding a small disk with the source code to the warhead would be an acceptable and valued solution.
qbrass 12y ago
They'll send you another missile with the source code just as soon as they get your location.

Jtsummers 12y ago

There are already pieces of software whose licenses preclude military use. One I saw once was a smalltalk implementation. EDIT: my recollection was off. They don't strictly bar it from those fields but may require a non-free license. http://www.exept.de/en/products/smalltalkx/download http://www.exept.de/en/products/smalltalkx/download

TallGuyShort 12y ago
Parts of the CERN Colt library expressly forbid military applications: http://acs.lbl.gov/software/colt/license.html http://acs.lbl.gov/software/colt/license.html. It's probably impossible to enforce, but it's a noble statement, IMO.
- Sanddancer 12y ago
  The problem is that the world's not so black and white. For example, the Army Corps of Engineering does substantial work restoring ecologically sensitive areas, maintaining harbors, etc. Would they be precluded from using this software to generate histograms related to a wetlands restoration project?
  - Jtsummers 12y ago
    I think that's part of the reason for Smalltalk/X's less-than-full ban. Ambiguity is removed because potential licensees can tell them what their intended use is. On the other hand, perhaps we should be breaking organizations out of the DoD umbrella. Do we need domestic public servant driven civil engineering projects to be under the Army? Maybe a Civil Corps of Engineers should be established to take over their non-defense projects (or more realistically, spun off).

mpyne 12y ago

If it had a "Field of Use" restriction it wouldn't be Free Software.

ineedtosleep 12y ago

It would go against their definition of "free software"[1]: A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms: The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
rectangletangle 12y ago
Yeah, but killing people also goes against freedom.
- seanmcdirmid 12y ago
  To be fair, there have been legitimate freedom fighters whose battles would be considered just by many of us even if blood was spilled. I'm not sure how de-arming would help the US right now, but I understand that there are a lot who would argue that the US has too many weapons (as opposed to having any at all).
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- hueving 12y ago
  The license doesn't say it must be used to promote freedom. It just says the users must have certain freedoms. Those are two very different things.

steve19 12y ago

There is also a rifle that runs Linux. It allows you to easily hit a target at 1000 yards in high wind with no skill. I have used it. If you made an OS that disallowed military use / 'killing people' you would exclude GPS satellites (used to guide smart bombs etc.). It would disallow military delivered aid (same US Navy ships that deliver aid can also be used to deliver munitions / support a fleet). It would disallow legitimate defense of any country.

aaronem 12y ago
> I have used it. How was it? I've heard a lot of really impressive claims; I'd be interested to know whether the hardware lives up to the hype.

ams6110 12y ago

Reminds me of Crockford's JSON license: "The software shall be used for Good, not Evil" [1] and his story of how IBM objected to that, and he wrote them a special exception "I give permission for IBM, its customers, partners, and minions, to use JSLint for evil." [2] 1: http://www.json.org/license.html http://www.json.org/license.html 2: http://dev.hasenj.org/post/3272592502/ibm-and-its-minions http://dev.hasenj.org/post/3272592502/ibm-and-its-minions

executive 12y ago
Makes sense. IBM tech did power the Holocaust.
- ronjouch 12y ago
  For details on executive's comment, see http://www.amazon.com/IBM-Holocaust-Strategic-Alliance-Corporation/dp/0914153102 http://www.amazon.com/IBM-Holocaust-Strategic-Alliance-Corpo...
- aaronem 12y ago
  As well as the Apollo program, in the form of the Saturn V instrument unit. I suppose it never ceases being necessary to reiterate that no technology is either good or evil, and it's not applied science which carries moral weight, but the uses to which people put it.
  - mnordhoff 12y ago
    Indeed, and IBM are a collection of people who made, and still make, decisions about the uses to which their technology will be put. Technology does not amorally have the German census department -- or the Apollo program -- on speed dial.
    - camus2 12y ago
      Thats why USA welcomed so many nazi scientists right after WW2,operation paper clip...

superuser2 12y ago

Apple's EULA prohibits the use of Apple products to run nuclear equipment. This is often cited by proponents of free software as an example of the Big Brother-ish restrictions they are trying to eliminate from the world.

aaronem 12y ago
Do they also object to the clearly stated restrictions, which TI places on its general-purpose microcontroller lines, against their use in life-critical equipment? TI's reasoning is that they don't want to be sued because someone designed, say, a fly-by-wire control system which uses COTS MSP430 parts, and then accidentally built one with a bogus MSP that went toes-up on final and brought a jetliner down short of the runway. It's not that they are averse to their parts being used in life-critical applications; it's that they have specific lines for that purpose, consisting of parts which have undergone much heavier and more stringent testing as compared to the general-purpose lines, and if a designer of life-critical hardware can't be bothered to get in touch with TI and arrange to source parts from one of those lines, then TI's not going to be held responsible for a bad result -- nor should they. I dare say Apple's reasoning is similar. It's not that they actually expect (e.g.) iTunes to comprise a critical component of a nuclear weapon's operating software, inasmuch as such a device has any; rather, it's that if someone does for some lunatic reason actually build an iTunes module which happens to set off a 1Kt IND when you play the same Lady Gaga track ten times in a row, Apple's not going to be held responsible. Granted, it's a particularly stupid and pointless example of gratuitous lawyerese, but the underlying reasoning is probably very similar to TI's. (Although I do rather doubt that Apple makes a special version of iTunes which is certified for nuclear-weapons use.)
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- elektronjunge 12y ago
  Actually they release a version of iTunes with that clause removed for use in the U.S. national labs. Its unclear in the license whether its direct use to run the nukes or all nuclear related things. So the US government requested a release with an amended license and got it. Source: worked at Los Alamos National Lab for 5 years.

reality_czech 12y ago

The killing part is fine. The GPL doesn't impose any restrictions on that. However, the next the next version of the GPL will mandate that UAVs broadcast this continuously: http://www.jwz.org/hacks/why-cooperation-with-rms-is-impossible.mp3 http://www.jwz.org/hacks/why-cooperation-with-rms-is-impossi...

rainmaking 12y ago

The no-kill-GPL would just collapse under the additional complexity and people would just end up not using software licensed under it. For example, what kind of killing do you mean? Could you sue a doctor for using a medical device containing no-kill-GPL software for losing a patient? What about abortions? We've already put the question of when life starts into the GPL and haven't even started covering military use. Better to follow the good old adage of engineering and use the right tool for the job. Use copyleft licenses to further software freedom, and use activism to achieve your political goals.