
LWN debates whether using GPL software on missiles counts as distribution - aqrashik
http://lwn.net/Articles/501536/
======
unimpressive
First of all: This is a stupid question.

Second:

The solution is simple, copy a tarball of the source to CD and throw it inside
the casing of the missile. Add rocket fuel to compensate for the added weight.

EDIT:

Third:

That was an intentionally stupid answer.

~~~
jmj42
I think, on the other hand, that it's a very interesting thought experiment.
While the realities of the original question are a bit absurd, the question
does give one the opportunity to think about and discuss some interesting
legal edge cases (government copyright infringement, and the implication
thereof)

Further, it's fun to theorize about possible solutions to OSS licensing
issues: Deliver the source via special courier (military strike team); deliver
via the same means as the compiled code (a second missile); etc.

~~~
simonbrown
Related question: If a (non-weapon) device is shipped containing a GPL-derived
program which includes a copy of the source, but destroys it on arrival, does
that obey the license?

------
ben1040
Including a copy of the source with a missile reminds me of the "McDonnell-
Douglas Warranty Card" joke that is probably nearly as old as the Internet
itself:

[http://www.cartalk.com/content/mcdonnell-douglas-warranty-
ca...](http://www.cartalk.com/content/mcdonnell-douglas-warranty-card)

~~~
planetguy
Can't be that old, has to post-date the declassification of the F-117A in
1988. On the other hand, has to predate the subsuming of McDonell-Douglas into
Boeing in 1997.

I was going to try to get more specific by figuring out when exactly Grumman
(maker of the F-14) and General Dynamics (maker of the F-16) got subsumed into
McDonnell-Douglas, but it turns out that they never did, they wound up in
Lockheed. So whoever wrote this clearly didn't know all that much about
fighter aircraft.

~~~
excuse-me
The joke has been re-written and re-told with new aircraft names many-many
times - it dates back to at least Korea.

------
dattaway
I'm sure they would be happy to quickly distribute the source code on
replacement missile along with a bugfix.

~~~
einhverfr
"Thank you for your request for source code. We believe the product you
received from us was defective. Please give me your GPS coordinates so we can
send a replacement product, with source code, to you stat. While we believe
this does not count as 'distribution' under the GPL and may indeed be fair
use, we do stand by our products and are happy to replace them when they
fail."

------
pilom
The drones the original article talks about aren't missles, they aren't even
predators or global hawks. They are the target practice drones the navy shoots
with their own missiles for air to air combat exercises.

------
dspillett
The GPL only states you have to release the source to people you distribute
the code to, not directly make it publicly available. If the missiles work
well enough when "delivered", there will be no one left eligible to demand
access to the source!

Assuming that they are not selling them to someone rather than firing them at
someone, of course.

~~~
excuse-me
You have to supply the code used in products that you distribute - hence the
whole Tivo issue.

So the argument is - have you distributed the missile to the firers or to the
target?

That's what the AGPL sorts out. Is being hit by a missil a 'service'

~~~
Symmetry
This is sort of hilarious, but I'm pretty sure that firing a missile at
someone doesn't count as giving them code. Its not your intent that they're
able to use the missile for their own purposes, for example.

~~~
excuse-me
Your intent isn't important - it's the intent of the person licensing the
software.

I publish my shark+laser beam integration library in the hope that other evil
geniuses will use it and improve on it. Together we can produce an opensource
shark+laser beam system that is more secure and reliable than the commercial
offering. When you are an evil genius you have to worry about these things.

------
cliffbean
Yes, the internet is good at selecting pedantic people for extended
discussions of absurdities. However, this doesn't have much significance for
whether GPL-style licensing provisions are preferable in the regular world.

~~~
parfe
HN managed to generate 22 comments discussing a 6 line lighthearted
hypothetical musing on LWN.

> _pedantic people for extended discussions of absurdities._

And here we are!

~~~
Karunamon
I'm more amazed that even a semi-humorous topic gathered any significant
quantity of upvotes, let alone enough to get frontpaged.

That said, this is the silliest I've been grinning today, so thanks all :)

------
sigzero
RMS should think about this form of delivery in GPLv4. j/k

~~~
tibbon
I personally wouldn't mind the GPL being revised to disallow weapons of war
using the code.

~~~
mindcrime
First, do you really think people creating weapons of war would bother obeying
the GPL?

And secondly, that would result in the GPL no longer being complaint with the
Open Source Definition[1], which does not allow "field of endeavour"
restrictions. Whether or not the FSF cares about that point is questionable (I
doubt they care much) but it could make life more difficult for F/OSS
developers in general.

[1]: <http://oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/perens.html>

~~~
lmm
The FSF have what seems like a well-considered position on such things:
<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/hessla.html>

~~~
mindcrime
True, and just to be clear, when I said "I doubt they care very much" I meant
"I doubt they care very much about not being compliant with the OSD." It does,
of course, make sense that they make have a position that overlaps with a
point from the OSD, for their own reasons.

------
amoore
It certainly sounds at least like export to me. Are they therefore illegally
exporting munitions and crypto?

~~~
rmc
I strongly suspect that the US munition export law will have a section saying
"This doesn't apply to the US military" or some such.

~~~
excuse-me
I'm picturing somewhere in the DoD there is an ordnance disposal form with a
checkbox saying - "dropped on enemy"

------
tzs
Even if it is, the first sale doctrine would likely apply and so it would not
require the permission of the copyright owner.

Whether this is the case or not depends on whether or not the Navy is making
copies, or just passing along copies they received from a contractor.

------
sneak
Ha! Everybody knows that laws for mortals don't apply to the defense industry.

------
ChristianMarks
It's time to begin distributing copyrighted content on missiles.

------
Spooky23
The government has the power of eminent domain, so they can just appropriate
the property for it's market value. ($0)

------
BrainInAJar
Open source is great; can't create something? Bitch about licensing!

