

Can the Terms of the GPL Prevent GNU/Linux being used for War? - couchnaut
http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/articles/can_terms_gpl_prevent_gnulinux_being_used_war
There's been a lot of noise on the internet recently about the fact that the Windows-based software being used in the remote control system of drones use by the American military has been hit by a virus and this has caused the Department of Defense (DOD) to use GNU/Linux which is a more secure option. This has, predictably, caused raised eyebrows and demands by some that any military organisation should be prevented from using GNU/Linux in offensive weapons systems.
======
Produce
>It should be pointed out, infairness, that the US Navy will also be using
these drones to detect drug running in the Caribbean and I don't think anyone
would object to that

I'll object to it. It's nobody's business to dictate to people what they can
do with their own bodies. The current drug laws create a black market and fuel
gang violence. As demonstrated by countries like Portugal, treating drug use
as a health issue instead of a criminal issue reduces addiction rates and side
effects from drug consumption. Thus, anything which polices the current drug
laws is destructive by it's very nature.

~~~
astrodust
The good news is those drug-running submarines can run Linux just the same.

------
marvin
War is pretty much the definition of "we don't care what you think and will do
whatever we want", so this is probably a moot point.

~~~
nathan_long
"Right, so we'll shred the treaty, detain their diplomats, and prepare to
shell their cities." "Wait a minute, general. Have you seen this clause in the
GPL?" "Drat! Foiled again!"

------
Spooky23
A few things to consider:

\- The government has the power of eminent domain, and the military has a
history of "seizing" intellectual property to use for military endeavors.

\- The restrictions of the GPL are mostly associated with distribution. As the
US Government is a single, sovereign entity, someone with a deep understanding
of the law would need to determine whether modifying GPLd source code and
putting it on a sovereign-owned drone was "distributing" the code.

~~~
lukev
Yes. I used to work for the government, and the question came up on several
occasions whether it was permissible to download GPL software, make a few
tweaks to suit our needs, and then use it only internally without releasing
it. I never got a good answer.

~~~
icebraining
Well, I can tell you it was. The GPL only forces you to distribute the code to
whoever got the binaries, and employees don't count. So internal distribution
is pretty much "do what you want".

------
bjornsing
Interesting question, but IMHO a rather crap analysis. They don't seem to make
any distinction between completely separate legal issues.

For example, I'm sure the DoD could classify some software that was a
derivative work of some GPL licensed work as top secret. IANAL buy my guess is
that the classification itself would probably be upheld by a court, but that
wouldn't bring the DoD into compliance with the GPL. I cannot imagine that. It
would be a complete carte blanche for the DoD in regards to any and all IPR.
Even if they could legally do it I cannot imagine them doing it. It would be
outright theft.

The same goes for modifying the GPL. I can go and rip off the GPL and license
my software under the "Bjornsing GPL Derivative License" all I want. If
somebody licenses my software under those terms they are no less bound by the
license just because I stole the license itself. That's a separate issue
between me and the FSF (and possibly between me and the state if deemed
criminal copyright infringement). At least so I imagine. Again IANAL.

~~~
Xylakant
While you can certainly license your works under "Bjornsing GPL Derivative
License" if you want. The point being made (by the FSF) is that your license
would probably be incompatible with the GPL itself, thus your code could not
be legally linked against any piece of GPL code, effectively separating it
from that ecosystem.

------
icebraining
Another example of Betteridge's Law.

~~~
bjornsing
Yes! :) For those that's not familiar with it: "Betteridge's Law of Headlines
is an adage that states, "Any headline which ends in a question mark can be
answered by the word 'no'"."

~~~
AndrewDucker
"Is Betteridge's Law generally true?"

~~~
klez
Once you answer 'no' you contraddict it, but not invalidate it.

------
vampirechicken
Does Java's license still forbid its use in medical equipment, aviation
systems and nuclear facility control?

I imagine then that the licensor can put what ever terms in the license that
they choose. I'd like to watch, though, as you go about enforcing a "No War"
license on somebody who is prepared to wage a war.

~~~
icebraining
_Does Java's license still forbid its use in medical equipment, aviation
systems and nuclear facility control?_

Java is GPL licensed now, so no.

~~~
vampirechicken
TYVM.

------
gadders
It seems to me that any country that would be worried enough about the
legality of this clause, is unlikely to be a "bad actor" in any conflict.

