8 ms·

asked rms few months ago if it wouldn't make sense to change the gpl in the direction of "no military use allowed". he replied that would destroy the "free soft

asked rms few months ago if it wouldn't make sense to change the gpl in the direction of "no military use allowed". he replied that would destroy the "free software philosophy". i disagree. hate the idea that human beings are killed with the help of gnu/linux and/or free software.

why-el 14y ago
I have to agree with rms here. No X allowed is inherently anti-free software. In cases like this one has to think long term, as in how freer software can lead to freer societies, i.e. societies that escape government coercion. That itself I think will lead to a significant decrease in military activity because free uncoerced citizens can stop their governments from engaging in such self-destructive acts.
- voodoochilo 14y ago
  i know this all-or-nothing-argument and yes it is correct. it's about purity of the idea of free software, but killing humans is not pure. so how can the idea stay pure therefore? and what do i tell my grandchildren if the ask me one day: "grandpa, why exactly did you write that big while-switch-statement which killed 6.000.000 people in 2016?"
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - tedunangst 14y ago
    err, why would you write a switch statement that kills all those people?
    - meepmorp 14y ago
      'Twas a bug; too lazy to write unit tests.
  - joshAg 14y ago
    "I didn't write it so that 6 million people would be killed, nor did i write it for those people to use specifically. I wrote it to make people's lives easier and to advance human knowledge. I wrote it to create a tool that other could use. Like how people use a hammer. And just like a hammer, while most people used it how it was intended, some people used it to kill other people or to destroy things. Despite that, though, we don't ban hammers and stop making them. Yes, some people used my code badly, and did horrible things with it, but others used it in spaceships and self driving cars. Ultimately what I made was a tool, and once something like code or an idea or a design is given to the world and the world sees how good it is, there is no way to restrict who uses it or how they use it. My code is not inherently evil, nor is it inherently good. It just is. Others can use it to do good or to do bad, but at the end of the day, they are just using a tool to multiply the effects of their actions."
    - voodoochilo 14y ago
      well, i sleept on that and came to the point that this problem is similar to the knife-problem: you can use a knife to butter your bread or to cut someone into little pieces - but that's not the knife's fault or the fault of the guy who made the knife or the guy who invented the concept of the knife. therefore rms and you other smart bastards;) were right - i was wrong.
jen_h 14y ago
They are also protected by it; the sword has a few edges.
SkyMarshal 14y ago
Linux is a tool that can used, or misused, for any purpose. Attack the use, not the tool.
espeed 14y ago
Douglas Crockford's JSLInt and JSON license include the clause: The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil. http://www.json.org/license.html http://www.json.org/license.html And JSLint was not used in Red Hat because of this (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455507 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455507) or Pylons (https://groups.google.com/d/msg/pylons-devel/rggWC8JVeAM/rQ64CnZqM3sJ https://groups.google.com/d/msg/pylons-devel/rggWC8JVeAM/rQ6...).
- cema 14y ago
  Many people would claim the military use is intended for the Good. Opinions differ.
metaobject 14y ago
In this case, at least, these drones only carry recon/surveillance payloads - I believe the article said "non-weaponized" or something to that effect.

why-el 14y ago

I have to agree with rms here. No X allowed is inherently anti-free software. In cases like this one has to think long term, as in how freer software can lead to freer societies, i.e. societies that escape government coercion. That itself I think will lead to a significant decrease in military activity because free uncoerced citizens can stop their governments from engaging in such self-destructive acts.

voodoochilo 14y ago
i know this all-or-nothing-argument and yes it is correct. it's about purity of the idea of free software, but killing humans is not pure. so how can the idea stay pure therefore? and what do i tell my grandchildren if the ask me one day: "grandpa, why exactly did you write that big while-switch-statement which killed 6.000.000 people in 2016?"
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- tedunangst 14y ago
  err, why would you write a switch statement that kills all those people?
  - meepmorp 14y ago
    'Twas a bug; too lazy to write unit tests.
- joshAg 14y ago
  "I didn't write it so that 6 million people would be killed, nor did i write it for those people to use specifically. I wrote it to make people's lives easier and to advance human knowledge. I wrote it to create a tool that other could use. Like how people use a hammer. And just like a hammer, while most people used it how it was intended, some people used it to kill other people or to destroy things. Despite that, though, we don't ban hammers and stop making them. Yes, some people used my code badly, and did horrible things with it, but others used it in spaceships and self driving cars. Ultimately what I made was a tool, and once something like code or an idea or a design is given to the world and the world sees how good it is, there is no way to restrict who uses it or how they use it. My code is not inherently evil, nor is it inherently good. It just is. Others can use it to do good or to do bad, but at the end of the day, they are just using a tool to multiply the effects of their actions."
  - voodoochilo 14y ago
    well, i sleept on that and came to the point that this problem is similar to the knife-problem: you can use a knife to butter your bread or to cut someone into little pieces - but that's not the knife's fault or the fault of the guy who made the knife or the guy who invented the concept of the knife. therefore rms and you other smart bastards;) were right - i was wrong.

jen_h 14y ago

They are also protected by it; the sword has a few edges.

SkyMarshal 14y ago

Linux is a tool that can used, or misused, for any purpose. Attack the use, not the tool.

espeed 14y ago

Douglas Crockford's JSLInt and JSON license include the clause: The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil. http://www.json.org/license.html http://www.json.org/license.html And JSLint was not used in Red Hat because of this (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455507 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455507) or Pylons (https://groups.google.com/d/msg/pylons-devel/rggWC8JVeAM/rQ64CnZqM3sJ https://groups.google.com/d/msg/pylons-devel/rggWC8JVeAM/rQ6...).

cema 14y ago
Many people would claim the military use is intended for the Good. Opinions differ.

metaobject 14y ago

In this case, at least, these drones only carry recon/surveillance payloads - I believe the article said "non-weaponized" or something to that effect.