Posted on 08/14/2006 7:13:01 PM PDT by nycoem
Legal Open source project adds "no military use" clause to the GPL Monday August 14, 2006 (04:01 PM GMT) By: Tina Gasperson
Printer-friendly Email story GPU is a Gnutella client that creates ad-hoc supercomputers by allowing individual PCs on the network to share CPU resources with each other. That's intriguing enough, but the really interesting thing about GPU is the license its developers have given it. They call it a "no military use" modified version of the GNU General Public License (GPL).
Tiziano Mengotti and Rene Tegel are the lead developers on the GPU project. Mengotti is the driving force behind the license "patch," which says "the program and its derivative work will neither be modified or executed to harm any human being nor through inaction permit any human being to be harmed."
Mengotti says the clause is specifically intended to prevent military use. "We are software developers who dedicate part of our free time to open source development. The fact is that open source is used by the military industry. Open source operating systems can steer warplanes and rockets. [This] patch should make clear to users of the software that this is definitely not allowed by the licenser."
He says some might think an attempt to prevent military use might be "too idealistic" and would not work in practice, but he references the world of ham radio, whose rules specify that the technology is not to be used commercially. "Surprisingly enough, this rule is respected by almost every ham operator."
The developers readily acknowledge that the "patch" contradicts the original intention of the GPL, to provide complete freedom for users of software and source code licensed under it. "This license collides with paragraph six of the Open Source Definition," is how they word it in the license preamble.
Richard Stallman, the founder of the Free Software movement and author of the GPL, says that while he doesn't support the philosophy of "open source," neither does he believe software developers or distributors have the right to try to control other people's activities through restricting the software they run. "Nonetheless, I don't think the requirement is entirely vacuous, so we cannot disregard it as legally void."
"As a pacifist, I sympathize with their goals," says Russ Nelson, president of the Open Source Initiative (OSI). "People who feel strongly about war will sometimes take actions which they realize are ineffectual, but make it clear that they are not willing to take action which directly supports war."
Tegel says he doesn't fully agree with the inclusion of the clause in GPU's license. "I see the point, and my personal opinion supports it, but I am not sure if it fits in a license," he says. "Like our Dutch military: I can say it is bad because it kills people and costs money. But on the other hand, we were taught by both our leftist and rightist teachers to enjoy our freedom due to the alliance freeing us from Nazis, a thing which I appreciate very much."
Both developers do agree about one aspect of their license clause. It is based on the first of science fiction writer Isaac Asimov's Three Law of Robotics, which states, "A robot may not harm a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm." That, they say, is a good thing, "because the guy was right," Tegel says, "and he showed the paradox that almost any technological development has to solve, whether it is software or an atom bomb. We must discuss now what ethical problems we may raise in the future."
First thing you've said that was believable, but it sounds like you're going to be stuck on clueless forever though. Thank goodness you're not involved in anything that actually counts.
You mean like knowing who delivered a keynote address at a conference he didn't care about?
Are you actually saying our DL doesn't actually work?
I've met quite a few Government types who work their asses off....
But then again I've met a few that give the others bad names.
No where is this more true than in DOD.
His being a GS explains A LOT as to his lack of knowledge and his absolute stubborness.
GS's tend to know one or two things and that's it. After doing that same thing over and over again, they tend to react very very angrily to any suggestions that they don't know what they are doing or that they need to do something new or different.
Somehow I totally believe him. Not good for him.
It would be amusing if they got their butts sued off by the Asimov estate for copyright infringement.
You brought up rights in this thread in post #50, implying that it was bad to defend the rights of those with whom I disagree. Wholly un-American.
Their license is idiotic and violates even the tenets of Stallman's vision of open source, but it's their software (if not GPL-based), so their license clause (if it weren't itself a copyright violation) would probably hold up. The government, even the military, doesn't just arbitrarily violate software licenses.
However, why would the government even bother? The software's nothing new anyway, as a much more polished piece of software with this capability has been shipping as Xgrid in every copy of Mac OS X since 10.4.
What could be one of the biggest contributors to the project will simply ignore it. They'll see nothing like the work that the NSA put into Linux. Sucks to be them, their own stupidity and blind ideology did them in.
Not just the US government, but anyone else. A license is essentially a contract, to be effective, it has to be voluntarily accepted by both parties (licenser and licensee). if the license terms are unacceptable, the correct course of action is to not agree to the license.
I would not use any software that had such a restriction, even though I wouldn't be using it for a military purpose, out of general principle on two basic grounds -- 1) the authors are obnoxious moonbats who are abusing licensing to further a political agenda, and 2) it violates the fundamental principles of open source.
It is worth noting that even "loony left, anti-war moonbats" are against this bastardization of the GPL because exlcuing any class of potential users would set a bad precedent. In other words, they are setting the principles of open source higher than their own personal agendas, and I, for one, respect them for that.
"No I condem leftists, and expose their lies, like yours."
Hmmm...did you ever "condem" Planned Parenthood? If you did, I don't recall.
"The U.N. is pushing open source, and Bill Gates contributes to saving lives not taking them."
The U.N. is pushing DMCA, and Bill Gates contributes to Planned Parenthood, a group notorious for saving lives. His contributions free up funds elsewhere so even more can have abortions. Money is fungible, not that you've ever taken the time to figure out what that means.
"Your excuses for pushing the foreign Linux over American products remains inexcusable."
My Linux is made in the USA, and the full versions of it, along with free support, have been given away free to U.S. servicemen fighting to protect our freedom:
"Warren has announced a special offer for active duty US Servicepersons and their families. The SimplyMEPIS 2004 CD is available for FREE and the community forum site, www.mepislovers.com is prepared to support Service families in using MEPIS to communicate with loved ones and to reuse older computers by installing MEPIS.
To take advantage of this offer, the requestor must have a mil email address or shipping address. First, request a discount coupon code from store@mepis.com. Then go to the store, purchase the SimplyMEPIS CD, and provide the coupon code during checkout. The standard shipping charge will be applied to the order."
And Bill Gates gives money to Planned Parenthood to spend in other countries, while you defend him vigorously.
That makes you a hypocrite, but we all knew that already.
Mepis is based on Ubuntu Linux, developed by a foreigner with ties to the Russian space program. Trying to claim that's American is a perfect example of your ignorance.
Glad you're finally willing to admit defending liberal rights is your highest priority. Took you long enough.
Further proof of how far down the totem pole you are. You've obviously never been rewarded with a trip to the AFITC, much less got to decide who got it.
Wrong again of course, I'm a contractor by choice because I can make more money that way. I've turned down many offers to convert to GS, and still manage all technical aspects of the operation. Based on what I've seen from you here, you'd probably wash out in less than a month, but we don't normally waste our time on ignorant youths to begin with.
You really need to go back to a basic comprehension class, maybe third grade. Then you can re-take your US government class, and this time don't get distracted sticking pins in your Stallman doll during the part about the Bill of Rights.
Are you posting from a government resource? I knew you were ignorant, but are you really THAT ignorant? Did you not read the notice and consent banner when you logged on, or do you even have those operational?
Liberals can defend their own foolish ideals as far as I'm concerned, or have other liberals do it for them. I guess that IS where you come into the picture though isn't it.
Rewarded? You're funny. It's a place for over-promoted PHBs to schmooze and remind each other how important they are. You then come back with a few ignorant snippets of memory from the conference and say "Why don't we do this?" to your IT people, who ROTFL behind your back as soon as you leave.
You'll probably spend the whole time prepping for the golf tournament anyway.
We agree. But I will defend their right to have those ideals. It's an American thing, you wouldn't understand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.