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?
Now, if only they would distribute the software for the simulators or even run "Arcades" with networks of these thing setup, we could have 8 year old fighter veterans!
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.
"Mr. Hussein! We're running out of quarters for our helicopters!"
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"
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
Hello, McFly? If you want to kill open-source, start adding weird and useless conditions until you have a EULA like Microsoft. "The military can't use it," "You can't use this software if the company produces carbon-based pollution," "You can't use this software if you are involved in cutting down rainforests," "You can't use this software if you used a car to get to work today," "You can't use this software if you |insert liberal activist agenda here|."
Free software is free software. If you're going to start putting conditions on who can and can't use it you might as well remove the word "free" and just call it "Discrimination-promoting software."
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"
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.
If I had all the money I'd ever spent on beer, I would go out and buy some beer!
Dude, your head is screwed on backwards! The prospect of getting more beer should be priority #2 after you deal with item #1 on the agenda, the beer currently in front of you.
Sheesh. Kids these days. I weep for America.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
#include
//Ok let's see if it will run without //War being declared...
#include
#include
#include
int main()
{
cout "Attack!" endl;
while ((War==True) && (!Over_And_We_All_Go_Home_Heros))
{
Bomb();
}
return 0;
}
Yes, but engineers do. This is why security people usually notify vendors in advance of the publication of a new security hole, to give them a chance to fix things.
There are also technologies that have no other purpose. You can argue that a nuclear warhead can someday deflect a meteor bound for earth, but the fact is that the Manhattan Project was launched for another specific purpose.
Advocates like to say "guns don't kill people", and they are right to that extent. However, body armor piercing bullets have no other objective, because bears don't wear body armor.
I'm not objecting to your point that many technologies are neutral. I'm also not commenting on the specific ethics of the examples I cite, rather just pointing out that they are not ethics neutral.
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?