Slashdot Mirror
Open Source Code And War
"Should Open Source developers help the U.S. prepare for war with Iraq?" Roblimo has a piece on NewsForge which addresses that question by showing a specific way that the U.S. military is using Free and Open Source software (in simulator-based training for Blackhawk helicopters), and letting one of the developers involved speak for himself. If software is Free, doesn't that already answer the question of who can use it?
I was under the impression that GPL and a few other licences do not allow the imposition of other rules.
Mouse powered Chips, Open source Processors and Lego
. If military used M$ software, that means some bombs might miss the Iraqi cities and instead land harmlessly in the desert, thus saving civilian lives.
1. Assuming the US bombs Iraq, targeting software is such that if it misses it's target, it would probably land on top of civilians.
2. Targeting software uses neither Open Source nor Microsoft. It is generally designed for proprietary real-time OSen (VxWorks and "home-grown" come to mind).
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Furthermore, software under such a license would cease to be Free Software, as it would restrict Freedom 0. Such a piece of software would also not be free under the DFSG either.
http://www.donarmstrong.com
The bulk of the comments here all seem to insinuate something to the effect that as an open source developer, you should not expect to have any restrictions whatsoever placed upon your work, and that you accept this upon "opening" your work. This is totally ridiculous. The GPL itself places all types of restrictions on the use of the open source. It could be argued that some of these restrictions are in fact politically motivated. Arguments to the effect that it is impossible to define "military uses" could be applied to just about anything in the law. The law is all about attempting to place a concrete definition on an inherently ambiguous problem, so that folks can interpret it as their reason dictates -- and upon a conflict of understanding, the parties show up in a court and a judge/jury settles the dispute w/ their interpretation. I see the task of defining an open source license that excludes military uses as no more difficult than defining the GPL that excludes derivative uses (i.e. new apps that uses GPL'd libraries) from not being GPL'd. If a group of programmers wants such an open source license, I say great, go for it, and get a good lawyer to help you draft it.
To Awtrey's credit, he has thought the issue through and considered the effects of his actions, and is willing to engage in a reasoned discussion of his decisions. What I can't understand is other people's unwillingness to go through the same process with regards to their own opinions and actions.
foldplay your photos won't know what hit them.
Quotes from Zimmerman regarding developing technology that might be used by criminals and terrorists:
By the way, the U.S. Military is not the bad guy here, and by no means do I want anyone to think that I feel that way. Should we go to war, it's our kids that will be the targets of bullets and most likely gas and bio shit, all because in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s, our elected leaders sowed the seeds of discontent around the world, and ignored the crop.
I hope our military uses whatever they can, however they can, legally. If you have a problem with the war, run for the PTA, the local council, state government, or federal government. Did you remember to vote?
A related quote, on the selective enforcement of laws:
Almost every single copy of any software that I have used while in the military has been pirated (Blackhawk pilot in the Army 5 years). Can't say that the intent to disregard rules is malicious, but often down where "the rubber meets the road" users will do whatever they need to get the job done. Often IT in the military is poorly funded and as a result information managers (some poor person chosen to do the job on top of their regular job) "acquire" software. As far as finding out if someone is using GPL code, I assume you would have to file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request which now, more than ever, thanks to Aschroft is very easy to deny.
By the way, when you crash the Blackhawk simulator you get a red-screen-of-death. I'd love to see a tux screen saver while the simulator reboots.
Gotta Love that Bill of Rights.
Come play Heroes of Might and Magic Mini online.
> Oh, and the bit about terrorism? Americans are well aware that our actions in Afghanistan were motivated by 9/11, but that our actions in Iraq basically are not.
What do you base this on? Polls on the subject have shown that Americans are dramatically misinformed on this subject, with huge numbers of them believing that there were Iraq citizens among the 9/11 criminals, and more believing in evidence tying Iraq to Bin Laden that, in fact, doesn't exist.
Now, I know the use of "unilateral war" is a great rhetoric-filled way to drum up opposition for the action, but, well... it's a falsehood. Try again?
While I wouldn't put much stock in a Die Hard-type movie as a good source, the government can stop a patent from issuing, or take it outright. Methods include secrecy orders (seals a patent application for N years) or eminent domain (where the government takes property, but must compensate the owner.)
It's Linux, damnit! Pay no attention to renaming attempts by self-aggrandizing blowhards.
http://www.donarmstrong.com
Seems that the very definition of Open Source precludes any restrictions on who can use it and for what purpose. Get over it. It's really best in the long run.
Note the following provisions of the Open Source Definition (http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php)
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
Rationale: In order to get the maximum benefit from the process, the maximum diversity of persons and groups should be equally eligible to contribute to open sources. Therefore we forbid any open-source license from locking anybody out of the process.
Some countries, including the United States, have export restrictions for certain types of software. An OSD-conformant license may warn licensees of applicable restrictions and remind them that they are obliged to obey the law; however, it may not incorporate such restrictions itself.
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
Rationale: The major intention of this clause is to prohibit license traps that prevent open source from being used commercially. We want commercial users to join our community, not feel excluded from it.
Great conspiracy theory. You chase UFO's too? There don't have to be al Queda *IN* Iraq for Iraq to *collaborate* with them toward a common end. Yes, bin Laden has condemned Iraq as a secular nation, but that doesn't mean they both don't consider us enemy #1 - and therefore willing to work together. Your assumption that "we would have already invaded" doesn't fly.
Blaming Clinton, the typical republican excuse, doesn't carry any water. Clinton inherited the situation from Bush Sr. His excuse wasn't "humanitarian," but "no UN mandate" for a regiem change. Just like we have now.
Carries a lot of water. Yeah, the UN was weak - but had Clinton done something about it in '92 when Saddaam sensed weakness and started blocking inspectors, we wouldn't have the problem we have today. At that point, the coalition was strong, he could have more easily pressured the UN, and there was more momentum toward disarming Iraq at the time. But what did he do? Jack shit. So he has to carry a lot of the weight for the problem, because he could have influenced the UN but he didn't even try. Put it this way - you can't blame Bush Jr. for not solving the problem without blaming Clinton at least as much. You could contend that neither is at fault at best an dblame the weak UN instead.
The problem [terrorism] isn't one of government, its one of culture. We do for the House of Saud what we did for Japan after WWII. We park several armored divisions in downtown Mecca and change the culture with blue jeans, VCRs and constitutional government. To that end, Hussein could be an asset, as he already oversees a secular government and a fairly westernized society.
You're being a bit generous with "fairly westernized" - they don't seem to have any of the characteristics unless you consider a military dictator as opposed to a religious dictator "western." I don't care how you define the problem, you have yet to advocate ANY solution. Unfortunately, Saddaam isn't as likely as the house of Saud to let our tanks in. And as for constitutional government in Saudi Arabia - did I miss something?
So he's used them in his own country's military actions. Big deal. To date, they havn't been used in *any* terrorist act.
And you don't have to be a damned genius to realize that if he'll use them on his own people, he'll use them on anyone else. As for whether they've been used in any terrorist act yet...do you want to wait? Want another 9/11?
Box cutters and ammonium nitrate seem to do the trick for most terrorists. We should be focusing our resources on that.
Yeah, and we are. For one, box cutters will never work again - didn't even work on the fourth plane. And there are only so many people you can kill with ammonium nitrate/diesel oil bombs, as they're pretty crude. And since Oklahoma City, ammonium nitrate (and other oxidizers) are HIGHLY controlled.
Bottom line - you criticize the planned war. OK, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with the conclusion, but your arguments against it are...what? Claims of conspiracies and fabricated evidence? That's ridiculously lame. Go with the cost, ($100b) if anything. Go with the slippery slope argument - basically, that getting rid of *just* Iraq won't work without Syria, etc. Or fear of the scorched-earth policy that Saddaam will likely follow if deposed. Or power-vacuum theory. You have so many choices, don't go with the shitty argument. Do realize, though, that an anti-war stance ultimately admits that we have effectively no hope of stopping terrorism, as its sources will go unchecked. You have no alternative solution, the UN has done *absolutely* nothing - so, again, other than *living* with terrorism, which I don't find particularly attractive, what do we do other than destroy all regimes that support it?
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
and where, exactly, did the iranian "monster" come from? well, in 1941 the allies invaded iran and deposed the shah. miracle of miracles, the new power structure in iran was decided by an election. the guy they elected was a chap called Mossadegh. Mossadegh did a lot of things... most of them very popular with the iranian people (he was even time's man of the year for 1951!). unfortunately, he decided to nationalize the iranina oil reserves. such a move was not popular with the us government as it limited foreign (read: us and british) investment in/control of the oil industry in iran. the solution was for the cia to orchestrate an overthrow of Mossadegh and a re-implemnentation of the shah. this, of course, they did and gave the people of iran 26 years of murderous dictatorship.
the rule of the shah resulted in two things in iran: 1. a hatred of the shah and a desire to oust him 2. a distrust of the united states who had put him there in the first place. eventually in 1979, the shah was ousted by kohmeni and ko.
a simple formula: you subvert a nation and its people will hate you. the us continues to prop up dictators and foster bad will around the world, then to contain the situation they develop more dictators (and develop more bad will).
Oil? I wonder, why we even went to Somalia, or why we are still in South Korea
south korea was a cold-war anti-domino play. why don't you ask your government why they bombed hanoi or cambodia instead? why don't you ask your government where they were when rwanda needed help? how about east timor? why don't you ask your government why they supported burtal dictatorships in el salvador and honduras in the 80s. were all of these decisions made to help the people of these nations? the united states government is not concerned with the lives and well being of foreign civilians unless it is convenient for public relations. that's realpolitik.
Neither Pakistan, nor India, nor Israel have ever joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaties or otherwise promised not to develop WMDs...
so iraq merely has to not recommit to the nnpt andeverything is fine? unlikely. hey! you know what country is the biggest owner and producer of weapons of mass destruction? the united states. forget about nukes, there are over one million pounds of nerve gas in the pine bluff arsenal in arkansas right now. go and inspect it yourself.
The French? Oh, they just can't get over the loss of the "grand nacion" (sp?) status
so it's hubris? hm. there are some other nations that may have a little more in that department than the french...
2 1337 4 u!