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."
You support the rights of liberals first and foremost. Always do.
I support everybody's rights, as should any American. Too bad you don't. Why don't you find a country that more suits your position of no right to free speech and thought for those you disagree with? May I suggest China? You'd fit in better there.
Wow, revelation. The one person here most rabid against Stallman is most like him, and the one most rabid against China holds views on rights closest to that of the Chinese dictatorship.
You didn't correct anything. You pointed out that none of the PP money was to be used for abortions, but shut up after someone here reminded you of the word "fungible," which ruins your case.
I never said take anyone's rights away, I simply point out when their actions are liberal, which you constantly defend as being their rights. So what, just because someone has the right to do something liberal, doesn't make it right. Except to you apparently.
ROFLMAO!!!
That's a bummer.
These people are so dumb it is embarassing. Would they have stood there with peace signs while the Soviet Union's tanks rolled over them?
Sometimes I wonder at the "rightness" of brave people dying to keep people like this free. They are sheep, they want to be someone's slaves. Too bad we can't let them have their wish.
Yeah, that kind of sucks. Especially when dealing with idiot idealists like this.
Open Source is already used, yes that does mean Linux.
And we are still using as much UNIX as we possibly can.
And believe me, these nuts won't get anywhere.....
So, you're a hypocrite. You defend the "rights" of the left wingers, just like you condemned others for doing. Thanks for not dodging on this one; unlike your usual responses, this one is right on the money.
Way to stand up for the abortionists at Planned Parenthood and the fascists at the UN. I'm sure your Christmas card from both will be in the mail.
Not where I work. We use American UNIX for any requirements we have for that family of operating systems, and keep the foreign clone Linux completely locked out. And we are more secure and reliable both, of course.
No I condem leftists, and expose their lies, like yours. The U.N. is pushing open source, and Bill Gates contributes to saving lives not taking them. Your excuses for pushing the foreign Linux over American products remains inexcusable.
Whatever you say Iggle....
And honestly admitting that you use UNIX where you work at Micro$$$$$oft isn't exactly a good idea, they might fire you.
I work for the US DoD, and have for probably almost as many years as you have been alive. But keep insulting me in defense of leftists and foreign clones if you want, since your insults carry no weight other than self incrimination.
BTW, despite your obvious hatred of Microsoft, do you know who delivered the keynote address today at the Air Force Information Technology Conference? To cheers, I might add. My guess is no, you didn't even know it was taking place.
>>>Then, by definition, it's not "Open Source."
That would be my understanding.
What about Open Source contributors banning users that eat cheese sandwiches, are a member of some minority, a member of some religion, or anyone in a targeted company?
Unless (license orignator) Richard Stallman changes his blase attitude about this, his dream of the Open Source Initiative falls apart. Anything that increases the risk of using it (increased price), simply causes it to be less popular (increase scarcity).
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.