Monday, January 29, 2007
2147483647=bullshit
Google and Yahoo, different lingo
|
|
Digitalpoint is Yummy
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Non-Military use License
 Hi License Discussers, I want to start a project on Sourceforge; a cognitive framework already used in robotics. We have been already working a lot on this project but my partners have concerns about the potential misuse of their sources. That's the reason why I'd like to discuss the option on using a license that could protect the source code from being used by the military industry. | |
| INs | OUTs |
In general, software licenses may contain restrictions such as this. These licenses violate OSD #6, which means they are not open source licenses. | |
Michael Poole Depending on how it's phrased, that would be a breach of either clause 5 or 6 of the open source definition. While some people may have moral qualms about the military using their work, other people may have qualms about homosexuals, scientists, people of a specific ethnicity and so on using their work. Rather than get into a debate over which groups of people can be discriminated against, we just forbid all discrimination. Practically speaking, bear in mind that most military groups probably have sufficient resources to "borrow" your ideas and reimplement your work regardless of what license you put it under. -- Matthew Garrett | |
| Out of curiosity what if someone were to phrase a license that it the software could not be used to "physically cause harm or injury to others" rather than expressly prohibiting military use. This might mean that it gets some military use but probably would achieve much of what the authors intend. I understand the key concern (although I don't share the same general political philosophy), and the OSI concerns, but it seems like there ought to be some middle ground that allows a non-discriminatory usage clause. Broadly speaking "not harming or injuring others" seems like the kind of usage restriction that might be allowable... Granted I agree if the idea is out there and its that good then the reimplementation is a trivial matter for a motivated large organization. -Andy | |
Just as a license can't require the breaking of the law ["this software may only be used to kill and maim innocent people" is not a valid provision], the license need not require that the licensee obey the law ["this software cannot be used to physically harm or injure others" is unnecessary]. Why does this list spend so much time on hypothetical discussions? /Larry | |
On 1/11/07, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: > Out of curiosity what if someone were to phrase a license that it the > software could not be used to "physically cause harm or injury to > others" ... So can it be used for medical ultrasound devices that save lives? [ Yes. ] What if these same devices are used in the office of an OB who performs abortions? I can see this becoming a huge entrenched controversy, which the simple idea of Open Source software probably does not need.... Ihab -- Ihab A.B. Awad, Palo Alto, CA | Lawrence Rosen scripsit: > Just as a license can't require the breaking of the law ["this > software may only be used to kill and maim innocent people" is not a > valid provision], the license need not require that the licensee obey > the law ["this software cannot be used to physically harm or injure others" is unnecessary]. Of course, physically harming or injuring others need not be unlawful: justification, self-defense, war. > Why does this list spend so much time on hypothetical discussions? For lack of any licenses to approve, I suppose. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Does anybody want any flotsam? / I've gotsam. Does anybody want any jetsam? / I can getsam. --Ogden Nash, No Doctors Today, Thank You |
Quoting Andrew C. Oliver: > Out of curiosity what if someone were to phrase a license that it the > software could not be used to "physically cause harm or injury to > others" rather than expressly prohibiting military use? That would be a perfectly lawful licence, but clearly not open source. (OSD#6 means what it says.) > I understand the key concern (although I don't share the same general > political philosophy), and the OSI concerns, but it seems like there > ought to be some middle ground that allows a non-discriminatory usage > clause. You can certainly claim that middle ground, and would be very welcome to feel really virtuous about it. But it's not open source. -- Cheers, I remember Fred, 1919 - 2005. Rick Moen http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Essays/fred.html rickooo@linuxmafia.com On Jan 11, 2007, at 10:56 AM, Lawrence Rosen wrote: [ ... ] > Why does this list spend so much time on hypothetical discussions? Thinking about hypothetical cases and figuring out whether they satisfy (or fail to satisfy) a given set of constraints is a very common design approach in computer science, especially when the nature of the constraints are not clearly understood or seem contradictory. It seems evident than many people writing software don't understand contract law and licensing issues very well, which is probably one of the reasons why the OSI board wants someone submitting a license to have it reviewed by someone legally qualified to do so. -- -Chuck > Of course, physically harming or injuring others need not be unlawful: > justification, self-defense, war. The software license need not say that it can be appropriate, in a self-defense situation, to hit a mugger in the head with the jewel case. Of course, that's more difficult when the software is downloaded in softcopy form and the justification is "I killed this guy with my software in self-defense." Sometimes hypotheticals get so outrageous that they become fun again. /Larry Lawrence Rosen scripsit: > The software license need not say that it can be appropriate, in a > self-defense situation, to hit a mugger in the head with the jewel case. > > Of course, that's more difficult when the software is downloaded in > softcopy form and the justification is "I killed this guy with my > software in self-defense." Sure. "I shot him with my computer-controlled laser using software I downloaded from GunsRUs.com." > Sometimes hypotheticals get so outrageous that they become fun again. Yup. -- Dream projects long deferred John Cowan usually bite the wax tadpole. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan --James Lileks I think that kind of license will NOT prevent anybody from using you software for military purposes. A war is usually started by people who have got very much political power in a country, so they will just turn your license into public domain by chaning the law in that coutry, in case they need it for the war. If they win the war, their law will, keep in power an thus they used your software legally. If they lose they will be killed or a least severly punished. The reasons will be defined by the winning country. The punishment will not depent on whether they, used the corectly licensed software in this war. I think there are a lot of problems in this field, but I don't think licenses will solve any of them. Cheers Dirk Andrew C. Oliver wrote: > Out of curiosity what if someone were to phrase a license that it the > software could not be used to "physically cause harm or injury to > others" rather than expressly prohibiting military use. Nope, "physically causing harm or injury to others" is a field of endeavour (sometimes a quite profitable one). Thus, licenses restricting it violate OSD 6. > Broadly speaking "not harming or injuring others" seems like the kind > of usage restriction that might be allowable... Broadly speaking, no usage restrictions are allowed. > Granted I agree if the idea is out there and its that good then the > reimplementation is a trivial matter for a motivated large organization. If you did have such a (proprietary) license, you could patent the relevant ideas, and thus prevent (legal) reimplementation. Matthew Flaschen > If you did have such a (proprietary) license, you could patent the > relevant ideas, and thus prevent (legal) reimplementation. Although you cannot patent software in the UK unless it forms part of something that would be patentable ("has technical effect"), I believe the situation is still that the government has first call on anything submitted for patenting in the UK and can take control of it and make the idea a classified military secret. In any case, national interest considerations can always override patents. (There's also the problem that unscrupulous people in military companies can rely on military secrecy to hide intellectual property violations, even if they are strictly illegal.) David Woolley wrote: > In any case, national interest considerations can always override patents. > > (There's also the problem that unscrupulous people in military > companies can rely on military secrecy to hide intellectual property > violations, even if they are strictly illegal.) True, but in the U.S. I don't think national security can override patents. Thus, *if* the U.S. gov. followed all copyright and patent law, such a license would probably work, though it obviously wouldn't be open source. Matthew Flaschen > the license need not require that the licensee obey the law ["this > software cannot be used to physically harm or injure others" is > unnecessary]. Since the state writes and enforces the laws, murder organized by the state is usually legal. A non-military-use provision tries to reduce that freedom of action, so it is not superfluous. [I agree that such provisions are not open source.] -Sanjoy |
