LWN debates whether using GPL software on missiles counts as distribution

Re:LWN debates whether using GPL software on missiles counts... by mindcrime on Tuesday June 12, 2012 @10:45AM (#4100674)

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

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:LWN debates whether using GPL software on missiles counts... by lmm on Tuesday June 12, 2012 @10:51AM (#4100714)

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

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:LWN debates whether using GPL software on missiles counts... by mindcrime on Tuesday June 12, 2012 @11:21AM (#4100881)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:LWN debates whether using GPL software on missiles counts... by tibbon on Tuesday June 12, 2012 @11:08AM (#4100807)

I do suppose it would be better to just be able to force them to obey the GPL (and distribute their code), than disallow them to use it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:LWN debates whether using GPL software on missiles counts... by excuse-me on Tuesday June 12, 2012 @01:19PM (#4101535)

There are sometimes operational difficulties in 'forcing' the owner of a nuclear armed carrier battlefleet to obey anything.

It's even worse than trying to force a teenager to tidy their room!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:LWN debates whether using GPL software on missiles counts... by EthanG on Tuesday June 12, 2012 @02:40PM (#4102018)

I have to agree with the general principle of this. Hanging on my sister's kitchen wall is a tea-towel printed with a record of a delightful conversation between US and Canadian forces. They each insist the other should divert course. The US forces describe what they are - a carrier group, and again insist that the Canadian forces divert course. The Canadian forces simply reply, "This is a lighthouse." ;)

With all that said, I don't think it applies to licenses at all. Licenses are paperwork. Do I need to say more?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:LWN debates whether using GPL software on missiles counts... by tibbon on Tuesday June 12, 2012 @03:11PM (#4102195)

It isn't about the armed forces themselves, as they rarely make their own arms. Most weapons companies are publicly traded corporations.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:LWN debates whether using GPL software on missiles counts... by planetguy on Tuesday June 12, 2012 @11:13AM (#4100834)

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

Sure, most weapons of war are created by companies which act within the law in order to do so.

A broader question is: I don't think you can revise the GPL, can you? If you change the GPL it's no longer the GPL referred to by the GPL when the GPL says that anything produced with the GPL must be licensed under the GPL, thus all existing GPL software will still be under the old GPL not the new GPL.

You'd have to start from scratch with a new licence and develop a new codebase.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:LWN debates whether using GPL software on missiles counts... by lmm on Tuesday June 12, 2012 @11:37AM (#4100961)

The FSF publishes new revisions (see: GPLv3). Some projects are released strictly under GPLv2 (e.g. Linux), but it's more usual to release software under "... or, at your option, any later version published by the Free Software Foundation".

[ Parent | on HN ]