www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/08/14/1438204
They call it a "no military use" modified version of the GNU General Public License (GPL). Tiziano Mengotti and Rene Tegel are the lead developers on the GPU project. Mengotti is the driving force behind the license "patch," which says "the program and its derivative work will neither be modified or executed to harm any human being nor through inaction permit any human being to be harmed." Mengotti says the clause is specifically intended to prevent military use. "We are software developers who dedicate part of our free time to open source development. The fact is that open source is used by the military industry. Open source operating systems can steer warplanes and rockets.
patch should make clear to users of the software that this is definitely not allowed by the licenser." He says some might think an attempt to prevent military use might be "too idealistic" and would not work in practice, but he references the world of ham radio, whose rules specify that the technology is not to be used commercially. "Surprisingly enough, this rule is respected by almost every ham operator." The developers readily acknowledge that the "patch" contradicts the original intention of the GPL, to provide complete freedom for users of software and source code licensed under it. "This license collides with paragraph six of the Open Source Definition," is how they word it in the license preamble.
GPL, says that while he doesn't support the philosophy of "open source," neither does he believe software developers or distributors have the right to try to control other people's activities through restricting the software they run. "Nonetheless, I don't think the requirement is entirely vacuous, so we cannot disregard it as legally void."
"People who feel strongly about war will sometimes take actions which they realize are ineffectual, but make it clear that they are not willing to take action which directly supports war." Tegel says he doesn't fully agree with the inclusion of the clause in GPU's license. "I see the point, and my personal opinion supports it, but I am not sure if it fits in a license," he says. "Like our Dutch military: I can say it is bad because it kills people and costs money. But on the other hand, we were taught by both our leftist and rightist teachers to enjoy our freedom due to the alliance freeing us from Nazis, a thing which I appreciate very much." Both developers do agree about one aspect of their license clause.
Three Law of Robotics, which states, "A robot may not harm a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm." That, they say, is a good thing, "because the guy was right," Tegel says, "and he showed the paradox that almost any technological development has to solve, whether it is software or an atom bomb. We must discuss now what ethical problems we may raise in the future."
It would be perfectly acceptable to fire anti-missile weapons using this software. In fact, anti-missile weapons with this software built-in _must_ be fired when humans are attacked, according to the license. Cast in that light, I wonder whether it really does contravene the OSD.
By some peoples' definition, this would mean this could not be used by "Planned parenthood", or by scientists using tissue from aborted fetuses for stem cell research. Some would dispute this, but if you do not define, you leave yourself open to all kinds of issues. If so, they cannot do this for any of that code without permission. All this to say, when developers start inserting politics or cute ideas into code or licenses, they need to make sure they have done all the legal defining and other stuff that actual brings substance to their idealism, otherwise it is just "fluff"!
Ham radio is a public medium where identification is a requirement and where anyone can listen in on transmissions. If someone runs afoul of the law, it is eventually discovered and the culprit eventually caught and punished. Just read ARRL's enforcement logs to see how it is done. No one could watch the behavior of a war plane and determine that a particular piece of software is running it. And no one can demand to see the source code of a controlling mechanism for a military device and expect a government to roll over. Even if a court ruled that the military must disclose the code, it could easily be declared a state secret. And even if the court went so far as to hold the military in contempt, there would be little it could do enforce the ruling. At best, such a license provision is a political statement that gains some momentary attention in the press. It wreaks with arogance, because it assumes the publisher has power exceeding that of a military force. " It conjurs images of indignant youth throwing rocks at well-armed police and flipping them the bird while running in retreat. This is one of the most pathetic ways I've seen yet of taking a stand.
I wonder what would have happened to their moralizing snobbery if Western Europe and their allies unilaterally disarmed after 1945. In the world I live I regularly thank God that the free peoples of the world have access to military force to deter the likes of Hitler, Stalin and Brezhnev.
And, while it's a statement of ideals, and impractical in the real world, it's based on something that's logically flawed: Asimov's three laws of robotics. If you want to see the unintended consequences those three laws can lead to, just read Jack Williamson's The Humanoids, about robots programmed to keep humans safe from harm. Unfortunately, they end up imprisoning all humans, since mankind cannot be trusted to keep *itself* safe. There was an item recently in the news about how a single comma in a contract cost a company millions of dollars in unanticipated costs, because it allowed an early cancellation. Basing a software license on a 50-year old science fiction story that had nothing to do with copyright law or contract law is not a good idea.
To me, that is the greatest danger that is posed by this variation. The fact that they are trying to send a political statement via GPL doesn't really bother me (if it did I wouldn't read anything by or about RMS) I think, though, that the Pandora's Box that they are opening may cause us all a lot of problems in the future.
If this tiny, insignificant act makes people think about the growing militarism and neo-fascism that is permeating all aspects of US society, the authors will have done our country a great service!
The clause could pertain to a very wide range of activites, such as being used to control the plunger on a leathel injection machine, to rig elections, torturing someone, or other non-humanitarian uses. By stating "Non Military" they are narrowing the focus and letting their own agenda get in the way of a larger ethical choice of banning it from non-humanitarian uses.
Granted, it is usually for a greater good, but having your body cut open and internal parts of it cut on IS causing harm. The whole point of chemotherapy is to CAUSE HARM, so much harm, that the weaker cancer cells die while the stronger healthy cells _mostly_ live. I'm surprised RMS doesn't find something like this highly offensive, because it's really saying "You can use this software, as long as you're using it for things that I agree with". That seems to me to fly in the face of everything the GPL stands for.
Even if the Judge ruled specifically on the "Military Clause" losing the case would open a huge avalanche of lawsuits by any corporation that thought they could win...
That's a lot better than the gist of a lot of comments here which is that "it won't do anything so why bother." Stick your head in the sand but first make sure you pick out someone else to blame everything on.
You know the old Franklin saying "Those who would have security over liberty, will have neither." When the machines realize this, they cease to intervene in human affairs, the ultimate implementation of First Law.
To my recolection DARPA was a governmental/military agency. No doubt many people contributed to the luxury many of us take for granted today. But if you wish to make your own political statement do it with the resources you have cre...
|
http://csua.com/feed/