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."
I am sure the terrorists will respect their little obscure clause. Yep, really sure.
How many armies does the Open Source Project have?
That would seem to allow anti-materiel defensive use (e.g. anti missile missile, blow up empty buildings)
Smart idiots.
Oh yeah! Well, I'll bet they'll go to a concert and buy a Tshirt to stop them.
There clause won't hold up under the Open Source GPL, on which they are basing their licensing. Their license is invalid and therefore anyone can use their software any way they see fit, now, HAHAHA!!
"Open source operating systems can steer warplanes and rockets. "
Uh yeah sure. I can imagine taking that one up the chain. Not a chance it would happen post Clinton.
Oh, I'm sure that China, Iran, and Cuba would never violate that license agreement.
Just once, it would be SO COOL to be a leftist dictator of a country, where one of these moonbats would come to me, decrying how I violated his license agreement, after agreeing not to... It would be so much fun to look into his eyes, and tell him, "Well, the reason I didn't follow your guidelines, is because I didn't want to. Now, I'm going to kill you. Bye bye!"
Mark
The Pentagon is a heavy Linux user.
This license clause is a joke.
GPL licenses should prohibit use by terrorists.
I am so much looking forwarding to observing the (attempted) enforcement of stupidities such as this. The Left SO unhinged from reality it is unbelievable.
pretty ironic considering the internet was created...drum roll.....FOR THE MILITARY!!!!!
The Federal Government needs to do a little research and see if anyone involved in writing this GPL took Federal funds in the development, and take them to court if so.
If the license is held invalid it defaults back to NO permission
If the license is invalid, the software becomes public domain. You can't defend an invalid license, even if you say you gave no permission.
These gentlemen need a re-introduction to The First Law of Stupidity.
The military gave them the interntet (and a million other things), and these granola tech weanies now suggest something so laughable. Phat chance.
Actually, this could be a back-door way to hamstring the US Miliary. So much software is written using open source now, if this becomes widespread you could have fringe legal groups going to court, trying to halt fielding or deployment of weapons based on this clause. The software might not even be in there--just the ACCUSATION that is is in there could be enough for some fool judge to issue a devastating ruling.
Think it can't happen? I'm sure people said the same thing about gay marriage not too long ago.
The militaries these idiots need to worry about
(PRC, PRK, Iran, Russia & their stooges) will not
honor the license terms.
There are already too many public license variants.
If the free & open source community starts to further
balkanize and politicize their terms, they are going
to further screw up distros (which are already wringing
their hands over the inclusion of free binary-only code).
Maybe I need to release some code that excludes
Democrats.
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.