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."
Do you think our RT will understand?
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.
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.
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.
I serously doubt it.
Lawyers require MONEY to be paid.
Even the Aclu gets paid via attorney fee clauses.
Typical open source leftists. If this somehow flies we can expect some of them from overseas to try to ban America completely.
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.
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....
Thanks, you should join in bashing leftists with me more often, instead of defending their rights.
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.
List, please.
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.
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
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?
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."
Good luck with that.
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.
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.
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.