New 'No Military Use' GPL For GPU

Tina Gasperson writes "GPU is a Gnutella client that creates ad-hoc supercomputers by allowing individual PCs on the network to share CPU resources with each other. That's intriguing enough, but the really interesting thing about GPU is the license its developers have given it. They call it a 'no military use' modified version of the GNU General Public License (GPL). The developers told Newsforge why they did it, with commentary from OSI and FSF." Newsforge is also owned by OSTG, Slashdot's parent company.

Comments

Armed Forces gave people the right to be an idiot

[ip_freely_2000]

There's no reasoning with people who will accept (or demand) the freedom provided by military action while actively working against the same people. Maybe they'd like to live in a happy world of sharing and love, but that world is not Earth.

People do 'bad' things because they have to. Get over it.

Re:Psssh.

[Threni]

> It's great to avoid eating meat, but if that's your only alternative, you shouldn't let yourself or
> your kid die to support such an idea.

Yeah, that would be murder, or child abuse. I don't understand the connection, though. There are millions of vegans, and hundreds of millions of vegetarians, and I'd be suprised if there are more of a handful of cases of problems due to the diet. On the other hand, I see a lot of really fat children, where the parents are setting them up for an early grave due to obesity, thanks to diabetes, heart problems etc.

Asshats.

[LordOfTheNoobs]

Fucking Asshats. Note for the moderators : This is Insightful.

Re:There's a difference between that and pacifism

[rjdegraaf]

Striving for no wars is different than the refusal to ever use force.

But even pacifists aren't that consistent. I asked once what would you do as a pacifist if you saw someone getting raped.

"Call the police."

Yes, call a non-pacifist to fix the situation.

In war time, the number of rapes is higher than without war.

So what is your argument again?

Re:Psssh.

[Distinguished Hero]

And many claim to be Christians and go to church to worship a person who advocated pacifism and told people that when you are attacked you should turn the other cheek.

It should be noted that "turn the other cheek" would not have meant the same thing in Jesus' setting as you probably believe it to (see here). That being said, Jesus (the mythological character presented in the New Testament) definitely suffers from some form of intellectual deficiency, as becomes apparent when Jesus' life is contrasted with the more historical and far less mythological Mohammed (Jesus: killed 0 people, marryed/slept with 0/1 women, led 0 armies into war, conquered 0 land, was complicit in his own murder; Mohammed: killed many people, married and slept with many women, led meny armies to victory, conquered much land and many people, was not crucified). Furthermore, the influence of Jesus' illconceived ideas upon modern faux liberal thought (not to be confused with classical liberalism, or "liberalism" up to and including JFK, but preceding the rise of Carter) is quite apparent, leading me (and I assume others) to cheer the left's de-Christianization policies.

spends roughly the same amount of money on so-called defense[sic] as the rest of the world combined,

Perhaps in absolute terms, but remember that the US also has far higher manufacturing costs and much higher salary costs than a country such as China. This is also due to the non-Communist US economy performing a bit better than that of other countries; if you look at US Military Expenditure in terms of GDP, you shall find that the US is 26th in the world, far behind many countries that you like a lot more than the US.

fighting a war on Iraq that everyone from the UN Secretary General, to the late Pope, to the Dali Lama has bluntly called illegal.

Oooh, a war condemned by three unelected pompous theocrats (including the UN Sec. Gen.). If the war in Iraq was truly illegal (as you assert) and not just poorly thought out and executed, you would not find the need to invoke the name of the aforementioned three theocrats, but could instead produce a logical argument for its very illegailty.

As someone who is "pissed off" about pacifism, you're simply reflecting the attitude of the US

Correct. Anybody who rejects pacifrism as a ideologially sound system, or as a pragmatically functional system is merely "reflecting the attitude of the US." You have certainly won this argument, sir.

the country which has launched more interventions and wars of aggression in the past century than any other country by far.

Aside from your claim being unsubstantiated, let us examine the wars in which the US has participated during the 20th century.
WWI (justified, with the collapse of the Eastern Front, necessary in order to prevent British and French defeat, and ensure Ottoman defeat), WWII (I'm neither blue eyed, not blonde haired, so I cannot say I have much sorrow for the 3rd Reich, as for the Japanese, they attacked the US first, so that was their own undoing), Korea (UN Sanctioned, not that it matters, South Korea -- now rich, democratic country, North Korea -- starving peasants in poor totalitarian, ultra-militarized "country"), Vietnam (poorly executed in that the North Vietnamese were not properly attacked and defeated by the US, noone on the left seems to care as to what happened in Vietnam after the US departed (the invasion of South Vietnam by North Vietnam, the war with Cambodia, the war with China, the Boat people, furthermore, based upon the South Korean/North Korean Model*, a free S. Vietnam would have prob