Restricted use means it's not Open Source
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| golem Aug 15, 2006 8:50 AM EDT |
... if I'm not mistaken. |
| phubert Aug 15, 2006 9:08 AM EDT |
I believe this group states their awareness of the violation... so it's their choice NOT to be open... I wonder if this is fundamentally different from China's or other nations' censorship of the web? Talk about 'fragmentation' ... yes, QUITE the opposite of "open"... sad |
| dinotrac Aug 15, 2006 9:14 AM EDT |
This is a great opportunity to revisit the Trolltech licensing approach with QT -- which IS open. Instead of saying you can't use QT Open Source for commercial, military, murder cult, or what-have-you purposes, they offer two distinct licenses. If you are willing to GPL your work and share under the terms of the GPL, you may do so -- no matter who you are. If, however, you do NOT wish to create free applications, they are willing to license it to you under a different license, and ask that you pay them for the privilege. A very different thing. |
| jimf Aug 15, 2006 9:57 AM EDT |
I fully agree with Tegel on this one.
> "I see the point, and my personal opinion supports it, but I am not sure if it fits in a license" So at that point, it's not GPL... |
| Bob_Robertson Aug 15, 2006 11:06 AM EDT |
Wow, those Linux-running landmines really freaked some people out. http://geekz.co.uk/lovesraymond/archive/happy-mines Would they rather have them running WindowsCE? |
| Kagehi Aug 15, 2006 12:25 PM EDT |
The truly obsurd thing about it is, if this *really* was critical to military operations, for some insane reason, the government could simply declare it a national security issue, ban all additional development "outside of a military use" by the original people, then it would never be heard from again in its original form for decades. Sort of like a special cabling system they developed that is far supperior to the kinds of connectors we have, but is "restricted" to military purchases at the moment. I don't disagree with the general sentiment, but personally, I would much rather they do something more useful, like stop complaining about unnecessary deaths and find some way to make the people who wouldn't pause for a moment in killing us, "Play fair." If you are the only person in a life and death game that's "not" cheating, you damn well better be immortal, invulnerable, or suicidal. As near as I can tell, most of the people that think protesting violence will stop it are simply delusional or ignorant of what is really going on, which might as well be the same as being suicidal. It certainly doesn't make them immortal or invulnerable. Put simply, so long as I "know" someone else does want me dead, and doesn't really care "if" I personally did anything to them, I am not going to abandon a good baseball bat (never mind a tank), for the imaginary hope that I can "talk" **all** of those sorts of people out of doing it. I am bound to be lethally wrong at least 50% of the time, if not, in the case of extremists, more like 90% of the time. There really isn't a valid alternative choice, other than arranging for "someone else" to die in my place instead, then "pretending" that allowing it to happen isn't somehow my fault. This is, sadly, what ends up happening when you fail to end the threat, but merely convince them to shoot at someone more "acceptable". Why some people can't comprehend this is beyond me. Its one thing to admit you have no answers, but need to do something, and, on the other hand, babble about having some great answer, which never worked the prior 90 times tried. The ME for example has "cease fires" stuffed in every matress. It helps the dictators stay warm at night and serves as emergency toilet paper. So far I haven't noticed any sudden end of violence, in the last... 3,000-4,000 years? But seriously, if we do get into a conflict, these people would rather that, say, an aircraft carrier's automatic defenses be run using Windows 98 (or even XP, though it is admittedly more stable), or some horror show like that, than something that they know won't end up with the headline, "War ship destroyed by single missle. Military experts think software for defense system may have randomly failed at a critical moment!" If someone decides to fight a war, I want them using the best things available, not the worst, because someone "objects" to it being used to directly or indirectly kill people. And, this ironically includes police SWAT teams, Coast Guard ships, if they happen to carry guns, security guards that might have to discharge weapons in some situations, etc. "All" of whom fall in the category of people that might use the techonologies, in conjunction with "killing" someone. upholding principle is fine, the blind rejection of reality though... |
| jimf Aug 15, 2006 2:08 PM EDT |
As you point out Kagehi, effectively prohibiting Government from using any engineered body of work for war is like pissing into the wind. I think the Los Alamos project demonstrates that one nicely. The only real way to keep one's work from being used by the military is just not to do the project. Of course that means that no one else will ever get to use it for good either, or, that someone else with a less defined morality will develop the same thing without that restriction. This is not a winable scenario. By all means, work for peace, pray for peace, protest for peace, but, I'm afraid that it's not a viable component of software or of any software license... GPL or otherwise... |
| Sander_Marechal Aug 15, 2006 2:22 PM EDT |
Does anyone know what the previous license of GPU was? If it was plain GPL and accepted contributions then they could be in for some trouble by un-GPL-ing the code this way. |
| dcparris Aug 15, 2006 3:50 PM EDT |
As far as I'm concerned, it's not free. The FS definition says "any legitimate purpose". I would feel rather differently about this issue if they were banning the use of the code for the purposes of blowing up tall office buildings, civilian aircraft, and daycare centers. |
| Bob_Robertson Aug 15, 2006 5:44 PM EDT |
DC, is there some other definition of "military"? |
| dcparris Aug 15, 2006 6:15 PM EDT |
Maybe I should have used the term "terrorism". Most of us consider that an "illegitimate" activitiy. |
| Teron Aug 16, 2006 6:04 AM EDT |
I'm fine with the restriction. Saying that your software shouldn't aid people to kill others is a pretty sane thing to say, in my opinion. |
| dinotrac Aug 16, 2006 6:22 AM EDT |
Teron - a. Not in spirit of GPL b. Too simple-minded. You presume there is no difference between a somebody trying to kill you and a police officer who is forced to kill that person to protect your life. Or, perhaps, you believe there was no difference between Nazi invaders of Poland and local resistance forces trying to repel them. Etc. Those moral choices are too complex and too situational to make with something as blunt and mundane as a software license. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!