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?
...and you wonder why Islamic fundamentalists say the same of Americans.
What part of OPEN do you not understand?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Obviously, you have no claim as to what your software can and cannot be used for if you release it out into the world. Whether or not you believe the upcoming war with Iraq is justified or not, it doesn't stop the software they use from being used.
This is a completely moot issue, but it is good for discussion I suppose. The thing that should not be seen is exclusion clauses from the GPL and other open source licenses. I would hate to see "This software may not be used for military purposes" because that will lead down a path that is more counter-productive. Would you rather have the military and government using open source software or Microsoft?
Code audits are important when using software for military purposes, to ensure that everything is accurate. Whether it's personnel tracking, mission tracking, or simulation software, accuracy is important. Maybe my view is just tainted because I'm finding myself leaning more toward the pro-War campaign...
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
Give me a break. Developers aren't helping the "U.S. go to war with Iraq" they're developing software. I'm sure terrorists somewhere have an apache webserver running, it's not like the "developers helped them become terrorists by giving them a tool to create a membership database."
Software is software, open source software shouldn't try to control who uses it (other than stopping someone else for breaking the GPL) or for what purpose.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
*yawn*
I don't want to write open source code becasue somebody may use it for evil.
I won't want to work for a corporation because they may exploit someone.
I don't want to sell hammers because someone could hit someone else with it.
Let's face it. If you are doing anything at all productive in society somebody can use that to their benifit in a way that you may not agree with.
As x approaches total apathy I couldn't care less.
Non-issue ...
Although we can't perceive the use that code might have 100 years in the future (if any), developers should at least think about who might use their code when they make it open. Are there any licenses that restrict the military from using the code the way commercial entities are sometimes limited by certain licenses? Is it the place of the developer to show that bias? Does anyone really have the illusion that a government in North Korea or anywhere else is going to give a rat's ass about how a developer in Kansas wants his code used?
I don't think this faults the developers at all. This is like making knives; you can eat with it or you can butcher with it. The responsibility is up to the user.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
The problem with freedom - be it of speech or of software - is that you don't get to choose who you grant it to - otherwise it is no longer freedom.
You can choose not to give it to your enemies, but what's to stop you from arbitrarily dciding that your enemies are everyone except a select few.
There is always a responsibility that goes along with any project you work on - but it will get done with or without you. Ask Oppenheimer or Feynman or Einstein.
And the next guy who comes along doesn't like the military or governement, so restricts the usage from both of them.
Next guy doesn't like the military, the government, corporations or any incorporated businesses. So he restricts usage to all of them.
The next person doesn't like homosexuals or mexicans and restricts the usage from them.
Lets not start a vicious cycle, keep free software free for everyone. Period.
"Every tool is a weapon if you hold it right"
That is all very well and good. You can probably add whatever clauses you want to a licence. But how well would that actually hold water once the lawyers got involved?
If you really want to retain that sort of control over the source, then you probably have to close the source.
Download my free songs!
In terms of software licenses, which doesn't fully cover the question, but..:
RMS is very clear on this, and for those who don't agree with him (which seems to be the latest fad) many others have to.
You should not keep let politics like this get in the way. There was a particular project that released there code under a license that was basically GPL'ed but with a line saying that it was not to be used by terrorists and not to be used to help kill people. RMS really disliked the license, and argued that such lines are impossible to define.
and you wonder why Islamic fundamentalists say the same of Americans.
Actually, they say the same of Americans because they are highly intolerant of other cultures and religons.
I would know, I've been to Saudi Arabia and seen this intolerance first hand. Ever been to a shopping mall in SA? They typically have a government kiosk in the center which speaks of the US, Capitalism, and Christians in a most poisonous manner. Quite ironic considering their malls are populated with American brand stores (e.g. The Gap, Nike, etc.)
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
Will you change your license if you happen to agree with a specific war? For example, what if a foreign country's military was actively killing your neighbors and/or family?
--sex
Very popular slashdot journal for adul
Closed and opensource software will both be used for good and evil....deal with it.
Example:
Opensource encryption software can be used to protect liberties and the prying eyes of big government. It can also be used to hide child porn or terrorist activities...
should we abolish the encryption software just because it can be used for evil?
I'd really hate to see a new modified license that restricts use of software based on political bias.
Then you won't be distributing Open Source software, and it won't be GPL. If that's acceptable to you, fine write your own license. I'm (mostly) against war, however, restricting the use of the code instantly invalidates it as Open Source.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
The outcome of this war is certain. The only question is, how many Iraqis and how many Americans will die in the process? Good software is part of the key to preserving lives on both sides: the sooner the war ends, the fewer lives will be lost; and good software (along with good hardware and good training) will shorten the length of the war.
Finally, consider that the work on government programs won't be used only in Iraq. That's just where we need it at the moment. Should the US find itself fighting North Korea, the same software and hardware and training is going to save lives there as well.
I don't agree with the concept of invading Iraq. But I do believe in saving lives; and I think that contributing to government software efforts will help us toward that end.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
he can design his own open source license, if he so chooses.
i'd be vaguely disturbed if something i wrote went toward killing people, but how you deal with that as a developer would be your choice. ultimately you can't control how people use your code once you release it. after all, the government could choose to ignore his "CUL (civil use license)" and who could stop them? who's to say that windows xp doesn't contain half the linux kernel in it? theft is one advantage of having the closed end of a closed source program.
"Mister Potato-head --MISTER POTATO-HEAD! Backdoors are not secrets!" (War Games, 1983)
You can do whatever you want with your code! But if it has such a restriction, it ain't GPL, and it fails many definitions of "open".
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
RMS has fought this issue many times, and pleaded people not to do this.
It will become a mess if people start adding lines that match their own agendas. "People who kill cannot use this" "People who are gay.." "People who voted bush.." and so on.
Is the NSA a civil or military use?
You'll have to define your terms.
If you address one, you implicitly exclude
the other. E.g., "The U.S. Army can't use
this" can be read to say "... but the Navy can."
Also, can NASA use your software?
Their flights are actually classified as
military operations according to the FAA.
I think you have it all wrong. It's not that Americans believe every muslim is a terroist, rather it's Americans believe that every terrorist is a muslim. HUGE difference there and I still can't figure out why I don't see muslim leaders around the world standing up against terrorism.
Does anyone know of an OSS license that includes some statement to the effect of: "This software is free for use, redistribution, and modification by any entity for any purpose, as long as any form of it is never used for military purposes."
No, and that's probably because such a clause would be impossible to define. For example, let's say such a clause was added to Apache.
Would that mean that the Army couldn't host their website on Apache? Probably. Would that mean that Boeing couldn't host their website on Apache? They make both civilian and military products. What about steel importers, who don't know where their product goes? It is reasonable to consider that their product would be used in the war machine, but has significant peacetime uses as well.
Bottom line: if you want to keep control of your code, and be able to dictate what is done with it, you need to keep it closed source. When you Open a door, you don't get to decide who walks in; that's the very reason that doors were invented in the first place.
--
$tar -xvf
One of the things that struck me is how much Open Source is dependent on international development. Just off of the top of my head, Linux and Python were started outside of the US. Now, both are supported by developers around the world. Historically, nations have viewed techological advances as national resources, both out of national pride as well as national security. However, Open Source software is inherently borderless.
This would appear to some to make Open Source a security risk, but it isn't necessarily so. To play in the open source game, you have to be a contributor. So you need to be a nation that develops people with strong technical skills and keeps them. You also have to allow those people access to other people around the world in order to share ideas.
Saddam Hussein may get some benefit from Open Source, in that it gives him software that is free distributable. However, I would imagine it's rather difficult attracting and retaining technical talent in a regime as oppressive as his. In short, despots may be able to use Open Source software, but they'd have a hard time leveraging it fully without free and open communication with the rest of the world.
It's also further proof of the interdependence of developed countries upon each other.
Presumably you could grab the text of the GPL, rename it the "NOWAR-GPL" and throw in some text about not allowing military purposes. You'd probably need to be a lawyer to get it right, though.
The cake is a pie
yeah right, talk to people who havnt been there.
i lived there all through my childhood (8 years) and no i am neither a muslim nor is middle east my native. i have seen no such kiosk, ever in any mall.
Talk of a lack of freedom to speak, to assemble together peacefully , to practice ones own religion and Burkhas (Veils) for women -I would agree. Then again thats their culture, that is the way they have evolved. One cannot judge a culture qualitatively or through comparisons. More often than not , cultures are there in the first place because they serve the needs of the society in that area - the needs differ from place to place.
Siggy Say, Siggy Do
Those same helicopters are used for search and rescue as well as to deliver humanitarian aid. Do you believe that the military should not be allowed to use linux on their computers too? How about the defense contractors... they're using linux to design future weapons... What about the movie industry... again using linux for special effects in movies that glorify war. While you are at it, why don't you boycot swingline as I just used their stapler to staple together my report on how best to employ napalm against women and children.
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
I'm still trying to figure out why we need to go to war?
There hasn't been any proof given to the UN or provided by the US or any other contry that proves that Iraq has or is building weapons of mass distruction. I mean its been a while since Iraq has tried to do anything against it's neighbors or the US, so why are we going to war? It wasn't Iraq that caused the attack on the twin towers, it was Osama and his followers and we've done a good job shutting down most of his group, but what is the reason for going to war?
Anyone want to explain it for me?
-Goran
Carpe Scrotum - The only way to deal with your competition.
Talk of a lack of freedom to speak, to assemble together peacefully , to practice ones own religion and Burkhas (Veils) for women -I would agree. Then again thats their culture, that is the way they have evolved.
No - That's the way their manipulative rulers have caused it to evolve.
One cannot judge a culture qualitatively or through comparisons. More often than not , cultures are there in the first place because they serve the needs of the society in that area - the needs differ from place to place.
True, however do you not believe that humans everywhere should have certain fundamental rights? Such as the freedom of speech, the freedom to assemble peacefully, or the freedom to elect their own leaders? I think they should.
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
I am against the killing of innocent civilians, and the military and the public relations for the military are experts in spinning massacres into `collateral damage' and `mistakes'.
I have given a lot of thought about the issue of whether I want the military of any nation to use the software I create to mutilate the lives of other people. I obviously do not want this, and I would love to have a debate about having a software license that explicitly forbids this use.
As the previous poster pointed out, once you go down this path, some people might not like X, or Y, and impose further restrictions, but this is not too different from where we are today.
There is a line to be drawn, and I would very much like to hear people's opinions on what is an acceptable line to draw, and where to draw it.
As you might expect, I consider the war being promoted against Iraq to be immoral. The spin for this war has gone through a number of phases, and it has yet to click. Alarming how easily the population can be manipulated through fear.
Miguel.
True, however do you not believe that humans everywhere should have certain fundamental rights? Such as the freedom of speech, the freedom to assemble peacefully, or the freedom to elect their own leaders? I think they should.
Agreed, seeing every city in the world with the same ideals that we honour in democratic nations would be nice. But we should also understand that Any change should come from within the country - not forced upon externally.
I would be the happiest to see American Culture as a whole being adopted throughout the world through its inherent power and influence (which is happening to a lots of places in the world btw) - not because of its military muscle.
Siggy Say, Siggy Do
You may want to be careful using a blanket clause for the military. Not only does the military wage war, our primary purpose, we also do peace keeping, disaster relief (natural and otherwise), research, medicine. Do you want to restrict it to just the combat arms jobs or does that mean that finannce, medical, personnel, supply, etc cant use open source either.
One might also have to define what one means by military. Do I voilate the clause by using your software while I go to college funded by my GI Bill benefits? If I work for a police station and martial law is declared, am I all of a sudden not allowed to use my software because the Army is in control? What if I develop a great software program that is then used as a weapon? Does that mean that the product is illegitmate because I used your source for a program that became a weapon somewhere down the line?
Using a military restriction seems more throuble than its worth. If your really against the military, there are other more productive things you can do.
PFC Gruhn
US Army, Fort Lewis
"Serve and Sustain"
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
From http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
If a developer doesn't like war, then he better put that in the license. Short of that, he has nothing to complain about.
-B
Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.
You and which army?
Not all 'military projects' are bad. When I was in the army, I secured my country's borders (not primarily hunting illegal immigrants, but the facilitators that take all their money) and helped victims of natural catastrophes. Of course, there also are those 'military projects' that are about killing lots of humans. For good reasons, they are planned and conducted rather secretly and the people involved are making rather sure no one gets access to their computers. So, why do you think they would respect your little license terms?
And who decides which 'actions' are 'non-civil' and in which ways a software program could be 'related' to them? That whole idea is callow humbug.
I'd rather try making the world a little better and thus a less likely place to start wars by creating stuff like free software, not almost-free software.
but what do i know, i'm just a model.
Not to mention which this won't be a war as we are used to thinking of them. Casualties in the Gulf War were very low, and I can't imagine this being much different. As you say, the military considers minimization of collateral damage to be a top priority. The concept of there being 100,000 civilian deaths (I've heard someone say it) is FUD.
Not to mention which, programmers aren't experts on military matters. This is scarcely better than Susan Sarandon et al spouting off about the war. Yes, they have a right to free speech, but I'm not exactly going to let a moron actor change my views easily. Nor a programmer, just because he won't let the military use his crappy program.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Well you are certainly within your right to do so (assuming that a parent license does not prohibit further restrictions), but is that the best thing to do?
As other posters have mentioned, not only does restricting Government/military use of Open Source software encourage them to seek out closed-source options but have you considered a scenario where your country's military might need something you have created in an operation you do support?
The "military" doesn't just mean the infantry, armor and artillery types...it also includes some sectors of homeland defense and disaster relief. Some aspects of military research can directly benefit the public (bioterrorism defense research, for instance). And where exactly would the Coast Guard fit in?
Software can be used for both good and bad purposes. If a tool can do more good than harm, why place restrictions on where it could possibly do good?
- The point is to disarm S. Hussein and Iraq
- We need to "keep the oil flowing"
- If you are against the invasion, you support S. Hussein
- If you support the UN, you do not have the will, courage, strength, etc. to confront S. Hussein
- We are doing it to stop the proliferation of WMD
- We are going to liberate the people of Iraq
- We are going to bring democracy to Iraq
- We have no "territorial ambitions," as G. Bush has claimed
- We are committed to fighting evil
- We are by definition fundamentally good, and thus most suited to decide on our own what regimes should be confronted and how to do it
- An overwhelmingly strong military and demonstrable willingness to use it are the best guarantors of peace
- The best way to dissuade authoritarian regimes from developing deterrent WMD arsenals is to threaten them with full-scale military invasion
- We will defeat asynchronous, decentralized, distributed religious fundamentalist terrorists with full-scale military confrontation
I could go on, but I don't have time. If you believe in the above points, then may the gods have mercy on all of us.Better log off the Internet (descendant of DARPANet) Have fun doing nothing for the rest of your life.
But therein lies a real 'double edged sword', the great thing about the GPL/LGPL is that it doesn't have lots of different potentially incompatible licenses - so people can mix and match their software - libertarian code works with lefty code works with evil warmongering republican code.
:)
By omitting the ability for the military, and therein the government, to utilize your code you are causing more damage. The proprietary code is less easily auditable, thereby potentially more buggy causing more destruction. Also, what about the peace keeping portions of the military?
If you write something that can be used for military purposes, and forbid the government on your side from using it and gaining advantage, than what will stop the opposing force from using it without your consent? Fear of a lawsuit... don't think so
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
If you are right that Iraq doesn't have the bomb (I'm not sure even the inspectors can say that with any certainty), all the more reason to invade them rather than North Korea - Iraq won't launch nukes it doesn't have. Attacking North Korea in no way assures they won't get a nuke off, unless the US were to launch an all-out preemptive nuke attack against them, which is not on the table right now, in small part because it would prove true North Korea's belief that the US wants to destroy their country.
Should China be prohibited from using GPL code because they enslave their population and have a dictatorship/communist government? No. As much as despise the Chinese government, that's not what GPL is about. BC
Damn what BS is Eric S. Raymond spewing.
He talks about keeping power away from the government, and while the population has tried to do that over time, and the government has tried to take more and more, it has become obvious that the struggle will continue forever.
But when talks about "a socially responsible programmer not allowing his/her work to assist...." it makes no sense. If you really don't want your work to be used in ways you don't intend, then release it under a different license, or don't release it at all. Also as many others have stated, it is hard to have a clause so broad, such as "This Software cannot be used to kill", and expect it to be honored.
He also talks about "The founders of the U.S. expected us to exercise social responsibility with the ballot and the bullet", and that is exactly what is happening. Although some programmers might not be making software for helicopter simulation, or whatever it may be, they are still making software and in most cases DISTRIBUTING it freely - on the Internet which came from where? Oh Ok. Now this also does not take into effect that some programmers have no problem with how their software is being used.
ERS brings up some good points, that might have been valid a century ago, but to defend with "citizens arms if the vote fails". This simplistic view doesn't seem to consider the current global situation.
Whether or not war is right or wrong is not the issue with Iraq. Saddam has very little to do with the "terrorists" that the US is attempting to fend off, if you buy their rhetoric. There is never a right and a wrong in war. Only those that dominate, and they that win write the history books. I happen to think it's wrong, but some other people think it's right. I live in the US and will do what I can show my disdain for the current Government as I think they are a bunch of damn money-grubbing bullies. But they get to write history with their actions. It's just a damn shame they won't think about what they are doing first. They are short-sighted imbeciles, just look at Bush and Cheany's Coorporate antics, which are exemplified by his current tax antics. They have a "make as much as you can and run" policy. Which will turn Iraq into something far worse than it is currently...
(Sponsored by cheeseSource for President 2012)
does writing or contributing to open source, have anything at all with your own personal political views. I really don't think it does.
I'd say do what your own convictions tell you to. If you feel that your contributions to a project are going towards a means that you don't like.. then don't contribute. But as a previous post said, Open source is open source. Anybody can use it. If you don't like that then don't do open source anymore. (or at least not in the project that is contributing to your moral conundrum.)
Who makes you Sig?
why not? you guys did a great job of dallying while pakistan and north korea built the bomb. it's an open secret that isreal has the bomb and the u.s. continues to do nothing. seems like the us gov is good at dallying and doing nothing.
it would still be a just war if for anything for the sake of trying to resuce the Iraqi people
oh please. since when has the u.s. government cared about the lives of foreign civilians? do you not remember in 1984 when the un security council sought a resolution condemning iraq that it was blocked by the united states? how about in 1981 when the us state department took iraq off the list of nations that "sponsored terrorism"... conveniently this was done a few weeks after the iraqi invasion of longtime us-enemy iran. do you not remember in 1986 when the center for disease control and the american type culture collection sent anthrax and Clostridium botulinum strains to iraq? how about in 1988 when cdc/atcc *gave* iraq botulinum toxin and botulinum toxiod? if there are bio weapons in iraq, remember where they came from: atlanta.
the us backed hussein for a decade because it was looking for someone to keep iran in line. no one gave a damn about the "iraqi people" from 1979 until last week. so why, all of a sudden, is it the united state's number one priority?
I think even the folks in France know I'm right
i think the people of france know that when the us ousts a government and puts in a new one, the new puppet has a bad habit of becoming a monster later on. remember noriega? remember (dare i say it) osama bin laden? the mujahadeen were called "the moral equivalent of the [us] founding fathers" by reagan back when they were fighting the soviets. oops. the difference between the us and france is that france understands history and is not blinded by ultranationalism.
2 1337 4 u!
If on the other hand, your software is a political platform for your views and you think that's more important than Free Software (or Open Source Software, depending on your leaning), then go ahead and add the restrictions. I won't use your software since I find software that pretends to be Free while throwing in lots of additional random restrictions to be much more distasteful than straightforward, honest commercial software.
The monster helped to contain another monster -- Iran -- as you point out.
The head of a popularly elected government decided to nationationalize Iranian oil. So we assasinated him and put the Shah back in power. When the students marched, he brought in soliders with machine guns to shoot them. We put this monster into power; why should be surprised that when his government is overthrown, the resulting government doesn't like us?
I've read about the current Iranian government. It's partially democratic, with elections open to all over 15, male or female. (Kuwait, which I assume you don't consider a monster, doesn't let women vote. Saudi Arabia doesn't let anyone vote.) It's not the most nice, liberal government in the world, but the governmental failings present themselves as voter apathy, not rebellions put down at gun point. It's probably optimistic, but I've defenitely got the impression that Iran will go totally democratic in the next decade, possibly without bloodshed.
Destroying Stalin in 1945 was hardly an option - he was America's ally at that time, and no-one of any political persuasion thought there was any chance at all of fighting Russia just as WWII finally drew to an end.
Probably the "right" thing would have been for the US to follow the British line more, and deal more harshly with the Soviets and the iron curtain. Who though can blame them for not doing so. And who's to say they were wrong anyway - somehow the world got through the next 40 years with organizations like NATO never firing a shot in anger. Sure there was a lot of tension. But maybe the outcome was the best that could be hoped for.
[x] auto-moderate all posts by this user as insightful