>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.
"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!"
I was ready to agree, but in glancing at the article I see a U.S. drone control station. And I'm reminded that one of the U.S. service branches (Air Force?) is in the course of switching from a Windows to a Linux platform, after the former was found to be infested with exploits.
Which makes me think: In the limited scale if pervasive and seemingly perpetual engagements and theaters we are currently experiencing, might there be some leverage? Some of these are not "all out" campaigns, and image and public perception do play significant roles in their continued viability. Their limited scale may also somewhat more readily place them within the purview of civilian and criminal courts -- at least in some cases.
- 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.
There was a satirical post to lwn.net about a month ago that asked whether or not the US Navy would need to pack a CD into missiles that contained GPL software so that the target of the missile would get a copy of the source code when it was "delivered" to them(http://lwn.net/Articles/501536/ ).
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.
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".
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.
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.
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'"."
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.
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.