Open Source Code And War

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by timothy on Wednesday February 26, 2003 @06:40AM from the four-star-specific dept.

"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?

3 of 861 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Re:Not with my source codes! by dondelelcaro · 2003-02-26 07:18 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

--
http://www.donarmstrong.com
open source and... by trb · 2003-02-26 08:02 · Score: 4, Informative

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:Because if the US military... by Anonymous+Cowtard · 2003-02-26 08:32 · Score: 5, Informative
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?