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?

Comments

Re:Not with my source codes!

[brejc8]

I was under the impression that GPL and a few other licences do not allow the imposition of other rules.

Re:Not with my source codes!

[dondelelcaro]

Presumably you could grab the text of the GPL, rename it the "NOWAR-GPL" and throw in some text about not allowing military purposes.

No. That would specifically violate the copyright on the GPL, which specifically states that you can copy and distribute verbatim copies, but modifications are not allowed

GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE

Version 2, June 1991

Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

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.

Al Qaeda is known to use PGP -- Ask Zimmerman

[jerryasher]

As Declan McCullagh notes, Al Qaeda is known to use PGP.

Quotes from Zimmerman regarding developing technology that might be used by criminals and terrorists:

What are your feelings about the fact that your tool can be used by people with intentions that are opposed to your original idea?

I can't think at one way to make this technology available to everyone, without also making it available to criminals. I thought about it a lot. This has been the focus of the debate in the '90s: many cryptographers tried to think about the way to make this technology available to good people without making it available to bad people, but nobody could find a solution.

Like the telephone?

Yes. For example: after 11 September there were some speculations about the terrorists using some GPS technology. I don't think there is any evidence that they did, they were only speculations that I read in an article at that time. Well, if they did, they were applying technology directly to kill people. You know, it's difficult to fly a plane. It's difficult even to fly it to the airport, it's even more difficult to fly it against the World Trade Centre. It's not a normal path, it would help to have a GPS. This is just speculation. Anyway, the manufacturers could stop making GPS receivers. But what about the rest of us: we benefit from GPS receivers.

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?

open source and...

[trb]

Where are you going to draw the line? You don't like the USA military starting a war with Iraq. The next open source developer doesn't like baby-killing pro-choice people. The next one doesn't like privacy-invading anti-abortionists. The next one doesn't like Moslems, Jews, Hindus, capitalists, and so forth.

A related quote, on the selective enforcement of laws:

More: There is no law against that.

Roper: There is! God's law!

More: Then God can arrest him.

Roper: Sophistication upon sophistication.

More: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal.

Roper: Then you set man's law above God's!

More: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact - I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of the law, oh, there I'm a forrester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God....

Alice: While you talk, he's gone!

More: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law!

Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!

More" Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you - where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast - man's laws, not God's - and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

--Thomas Bolt, "A Man for all Seasons"

Re:A double-edged sword...

[ajakk]

The government *can* take civilian software/patents/etc. under certain circumstances, but they have to pay a reasonable rate for the product. It is a great part of the United States Constitution called the "takings clause". It is the last clause in the Fifth Amendment: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Gotta Love that Bill of Rights.

Re:Because if the US military...

[Anonymous Cowtard]

Unilateral? My understanding of that is "go it alone". Lets look at the list of supporting countries of war against Iraq:

1. Britain
2. Australia
3. Italy
4. Spain
5. Denmark
6. Portugal
7. Kuwait
8. Qatar
9. And more...

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?