Open source project adds "no military use" clause to the GPL

newsforge ^ | Monday August 14, 2006 | Tina Gasperson

[ShadowAce]

There goes the "all open source advocates are looney lefties" argument.

Do you think our RT will understand?

[HamiltonJay]

hahaha.. yea, that'll be enforceable.. hahahahahahaha


If the Military is using some Open Source Code for some super secret project, trust me, you won't know about it dimwit.

[antiRepublicrat]

Uh yeah sure. I can imagine taking that one up the chain. Not a chance it would happen post Clinton.

The military does use open source. Embedded Linux is getting popular, too. Mainly it's about flexibility to modify and add in complete freedom, since the military doesn't have to worry about license terms as long as the software doesn't leave the military.

[longtermmemmory]

Lets ad some more clauses:

no discrimination based on the sexual orientation of the computer

no discrimination based on the ethnicity of the programer

computer users must subscribe to a manditory diversity quota.

You will not pull on superman's cape.

[longtermmemmory]

I serously doubt it.

Lawyers require MONEY to be paid.

Even the Aclu gets paid via attorney fee clauses.

[Golden Eagle]

Typical open source leftists. If this somehow flies we can expect some of them from overseas to try to ban America completely.

[antiRepublicrat]

Here's the classic bit: The GPL itself is a copyrighted work, and these guys didn't receive permission to make a derivative work by modifying and redistributing it. The Free Software Foundation has asked them to quit doing this, but they still persist. These are the leftists with no respect for copyright that you always talk about. From them:

We are aware modifying the GPL is not allowed by the GPL license itself, but did it without bad intentions. We go consider what is appropiate. After all, we're not after a legal conflict with the FSF.

How about getting permission first? Duh! "Oh, we can use your copyrighted works however we want as long as the intention is good." Blast these guys all you want GE, I won't stand in your way.

[Lazamataz]

"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."

[ShadowAce]

"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."

OK--this is just stupid. Will they revoke this license for everyone now that someone has died in an un-related action? After all, this program allowed that to happen through its inaction to prevent it....

[Golden Eagle]

These are the leftists with no respect for copyright that you always talk about...Blast these guys all you want GE, I won't stand in your way.

Thanks, you should join in bashing leftists with me more often, instead of defending their rights.

[antiRepublicrat]

Thanks, you should join in bashing leftists with me more often

As far as our usual issues go, it's about a complete disrespect for copyright and a sense of entitlement that says you can use another's copyrighted work without permission if you feel like it.

Even Stallman doesn't do that. In fact, the parts of the GPL that you have objection to rely on copyright for their enforcement. Yes, it's strange, we found people even more far left than Stallman, and they're actually trying to push a political agenda through their work.

I also object to the misuse of Asimov's first law of robotics. That was designed to keep sentient technology subservient to humans, NOT for how humans use technology.

[antiRepublicrat]

There are severe security problems with using open source software in military systems.

List, please.

[antiRepublicrat]

Time for the US military too expunge the cancer of open source crap from their computers then isn't it?

Remember, this isn't open source as you know it in Linux, BSD, Firefox, etc. This is a tiny fringe group making an unauthorized modification to an existing open source license for their project.

[antiRepublicrat]

instead of defending their rights.

This just caught me. "instead of defending their rights" ????

Rights are worth nothing unless they are defended for all, even those with whom you disagree.

"The principle of free thought is not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes

[ShadowAce]

This just caught me.

Wow. I blew by that one also. Now I guess we know how GE thinks, I guess. I honestly didn't think a conservative would deny someone else their basic rights.

GE, are you sure you're on the right forum?

[kevkrom]

A few points:

1. Any developer may attach any license they deem fit to their own work. If they attach a homebrew modification to the GPL that says "no military use", "cannot run the software on Mondays", "users must wear purple socks", etc., they are fully within their rights to do so, subject to local anti-discrimination laws (i.e., a clause prohibiting use by a specifical race or religion would not be acceptable in most Western cultures).

2. However, with respect to #1 above, if the license terms are unrealistic, no one will use the program.

3. Most importantly, the authors may only apply the modified license to their own work. The work of others included in their product may not be redistributed with a different license without the authors' explicit permission. Any GPL-licensed software included in their package would still be subject to the original GPL, not the project's modified GPL.

[Pilsner]

Like our Dutch military: I can say it is bad because it kills people

Perhaps I'm about to get educated, but hasn't it been decades since the Dutch military, apart from the odd "SWAT" raid that the police would handle in this country, killed anyone?

On purpose I mean. Not like in The Naked Gun 2 1/2, where Lt. Drebin, on receiving an award for killing his 1,000th drug dealer, admits "Thank you. But, in all honesty, the last three I backed over with my car. Luckily, they turned out to be drug-dealers."

[avg_freeper]

They might as well include a "Please don't saw my head off Mr. Islamic nutball man".

Good luck with that.

[antiRepublicrat]

If they attach a homebrew modification to the GPL that says

They can't without permission from the FSF, since the GPL is itself a copyrighted work. The FSF has already warned these guys they're violating the FSF's copyright. But that doesn't affect the rest of your valid point.

[ThinkDifferent]

Typical open source leftists.

No, these are atypical non-open source leftists. Restricting who can use the software make it no longer open source, and even the Great Satan Stallman opposes it.