NewsForge | Open source project adds “no military use” clause to the GPL — Here is a Pandoras box: Open Source with political use restrictions. Unless the Open Source community rejects this sort of idocy then the next thing you know there will Open Source projects than can only be used by a group of whites, or Chnese-only. No gays can use the software could be a restriction. What’s to prevent it if this is acceptable? I suspect that members of the NRA could be banned next. This is a bad precedent in every way.
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).
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.”
I think your fears of race-specific, or any sort of discriminatory GPL variation are unfounded. The distinction they made in their ToS is not discrimination of a certain group of people. Is it wrong to request that your creation not be used for reasons that few would call “good?”
Surely anyone, who has ever created anything substantial, must have wished that their creation would never be used to harm another person.
Weapon manufacturers aside, of course.
I have no problem with this.
I vote for no government use, at all!
If the government won’t play nice with us netizens, why should we give free stuff the goverment?
I should mention that I want to create an new Internet where it violates the End User Agereement for a government employee to even log-on.
Big vendors like IBM and Oracle will love this. Open source tends to keep these big greedy fellas in check by providing quality free alternatives. Now the military will have no choice but to use them (or other vendors that step in and fill the gaps) and get locked into millions in licensing fees. Time to plunk $$ on big blue.
Someone recently released a Drupal module for the purpose of scraping pr0n off the internets whereupon someone blogged about it and brought up the question of whether there would eventually be a line that should be drawn one way or the other. To that end, I reposted the link on drupal.org in an effort to stimulate further discussion that actually brought forward quite a few people in a community that has little interest in anythind that doesn’t end with a semi-colon.
Mostly the result was a collective yawn. Software shouldn’t be about politics, which is probably why the government is so bent on gaining some kind of control over it.
I seem to remember that my Mac had a similar EULA that prohibited the military from using Macs, though.
How can this be enforced at all? Licenses are worthless as it is. It’s almost like saying that, by reading this message, you’re agreeing to pay me 1,000 dollars. If you don’t agree, then you shouldn’t read this message.
I have no problems with this. They developed the software and can license it as they see fit- even to exclude any group under the sun if they saw fit. Granted, actaul enforcement of the license is a whole other issue, as Gibson noted.
Let the marketplace dictate whether their software survives, license restrictions and all.
Kudos to GregAllen for his no-government sentiment, too!
Mark,
Thanks for the Kudos! I don’t think of myself as anti-government since, in many ways, I’m a progressive liberal and I like the parts of government that make my life better.
But I have absolutely no patience for this recent authoritative streak our government has taken-on.
#1,
Not all weapons manufacturers make weapons with the intent to kill people. What about hunting weapons? What about target rifles? Considering the role of law enforcement, would you say their sidearms are offensive or defensive weapons?
#7,
As Gibson points out, enforcement is the biggest issue here. What if a manufacturer operating in multiple markets (GE and Boeing come to mind as examples) was using the software?
Let’s say our two examples use the software to set up the simulators for a new aircraft design that could be used in roles both military and civilian. Do they use it with one eye closed?
I don’t see this as a terrible thing for the open source community. The fears described in the parent article are possible in theory, but I think are unlikely to occur in real life.
Having said that, I think this no-military-use clause is a bad idea. Reasonable people can disagree on the current administration and the way it has conducted our current wars. And they can disagree on whether or not some of those wars were justified in the first place. But the military’s job has always been to stand between us and those who wish to hurt us. I want them to have every tool/weapon available to keep the soldiers as safe as possible. No country survives long after it starts to hold its military in contempt.
ah but, the GPL explicetly says you may not restrict use of the software in it. So to say no use for war application is a restriction, so the GPU would be in violation of the GPL
“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.” This right here makes in unenforceable. Playing devils advocate. If I use it I’ll harm someone and if I don’t they’ll harm me. Or if I use it I’ll save someone but also harm someone. Like what if it’s supply chain software. It could be used to feed an army or by the army to feed people in disaster relief
This is just a stupid idea.
The authors of this software are well within their rights to license it how they will. If you oppose their license terms you are free to start your own project. That’s why they call it Open Source.
Why are we only talking about the US Government/US Military? Don’t you think that other militaries (run by other countries and those that aren’t run by countries: Hezbo’s, etc…) use the net? …or open source?
So by saying that the US Military, or any country’s military, can’t use this…we’re tying their hands?
Good thinking for all the anti-current-administration-phials out there. (Note the sarcasm)
I agree with their decision
As far as the racism issue……Fear Mongering! Their statement isn’t even close. If someone put “only white people” in their license statement. It would be unenforceable inside the U.S. at least. It would be deemed unconstitutional.
I agree that it is the right of authors to put whatever terms they want on their own work. I wonder, though, whether any of this was based upon existing Open Source software. Do authors have a right to apply a different license then? Could get messy.
I agree also that the import of the new license retrictions is at least vague and at worst makes the software unuseable. So it should have been better thought out. It brings something into disrepute. Whether what is brought into disrepute is the GPL itself, or the idea of fiddling with it, we’ll know in a few weeks!
#17
While I would be offended by a “whites only” provision, why would it be unconstitutional?
This is a case where the pen is not mightier than the sword.
OhForTheLoveOf
The 14th amendment.
Just an FYI on the 14th: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/
“No State shall make or enforce any law …”
It doesn’t say anything about private industry.
Let me state that I think that would horrible to put something like that in there.
Who do you think would be enforcing the law when you violate the license agreement? It wouldn’t be the private industry. It would be the courts which is part of the state.
21, 22, 23
It doesn’t matter. We know liscence agreements aren’t very powerful. We also know racists suck. And we know the question is hypothetical.
But there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents David Duke (if he were smart enough to write code) from writing an agreement that stated only whites can use his software.
There is plenty of law, Constitutional and otherwise, that prevents the government, governmental institutions, and private industries who enjoy contracted business relationships with the government from discriminating… but none of it would extend to this hypothetical open source agreement.
OhForTheLoveOf
“It doesn’t matter. We know liscence agreements aren’t very powerful”
Wrong! Just because you get away with it doesn’t mean that they can’t enforce it.
“But there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents David Duke (if he were smart enough to write code) from writing an agreement that stated only whites can use his software.”
True. but He could never enforce it in the courts. There is plenty of case law based on the 14th amendment that would not allow it.
But people, they’re just phasing in Asimov’s three laws:
1) No robot shall harm a human being
…
whatever the other two were
…
Can we add a no-RIAA use clause as well, including any employees, sponsors or other benefactors of the RIAA? Sue ’em for all they’ve got if they violate the license!
#26 “It doesn’t matter. We know liscence agreements aren’t very powerful”
Wrong! Just because you get away with it doesn’t mean that they can’t enforce it.
“But there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents David Duke (if he were smart enough to write code) from writing an agreement that stated only whites can use his software.”
True. but He could never enforce it in the courts. There is plenty of case law based on the 14th amendment that would not allow it.
So in the first part, they can enforce it, and in the second part they can’t… Which is it? Can you enforce them or not?
Most cases I’ve read about have flipped a giant legal bird to EULAs in cases where EULAs nested unreasonable BS that wasn’t already backed up by existing law.
“So in the first part, they can enforce it, and in the second part they can’t”
Yes!
You can’t enforce the terms of a contract that violate the law. For instance. If the EULA said you can only use this software while you shoot heroin.
ILLEGAL! !! CANT BE ENFORCED!
If your EULA says that you can only use on one machine per location.
LEGAL!!!!! CAN BE ENFORCED!
Do you get it yet!
Excluding the use of the software from a selected group of people based on race, sex or class would be in violation of the 14th Amendment.
26 Just because you get away with it doesn’t mean that they can’t enforce it.
Huh?
GPU is a Gnutella client that creates ad-hoc supercomputers…
Just how are the GPU programmers going to enforce this?
Which government-funded military projects are using Gnutella file-sharing software as a basis for it’s super-computing needs? [Any government, not just the US] How would the authors ever find out?
How many “non-governmental” [wink, wink] groups which desire super-computing capability will use this software? How would the authors ever find out?
If the authors can’t determine who is using their code, how can they enforce their license?
Are they depending on whistle-blowers?
[smirk] The decency of their fellow man? [/smirk]
31
I was referring to the fact that people violate EULA’s all the time and never get caught.
BUT
If Microsoft caught you using XP in a way that violates their EULA they could prosecute you and they would more than likely succeed. They could for instance make XP dial home all the time. Wait they are already doing that 😛
BUT
Suing your potential customers is bad for business so they don’t do that on a regular basis unless the offense is great. Like a company running 30 copies and stuff like that.
If Microsoft caught you using XP in a way that violates their EULA they could prosecute you and they would more than likely succeed.
Just to clarify something. If you violate the EULA, you commit copyright infringement. You will not be prosecuted. You might be sued, but copyright infringement is not illegal. The software owner would only have recourse to claim damages and if necessary, sue you. You may only be prosecuted for a criminal charge.
The other thing, if you already agreed to a contract (EULA), then that may not be changed unless you both agree to new terms. I am unaware of any original copies of XP allowing them to “phone home”. Nor may they add the Windows Genuine Advantage without your permission.