non-military use license
Andrew C. Oliver
acoliver at buni.org
Thu Jan 11 18:38:44 UTC 2007
Out of curiosity what if someone were to phrase a license that it the
software could not be
used to "physically cause harm or injury to others" rather than
expressly prohibiting military use. This might mean that it gets some
military use but probably would achieve much of what the authors
intend. I understand the key concern (although I don't share the same
general political philosophy), and the OSI concerns, but it seems like
there ought to be some middle ground that allows a non-discriminatory
usage clause. Broadly speaking "not harming or injuring others" seems
like the kind of usage restriction that might be allowable...
Granted I agree if the idea is out there and its that good then the
reimplementation is a trivial matter for a motivated large organization.
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 12:32:03AM +0800, gilemon wrote:
>> That’s the reason why I’d like to discuss the option on using a license that
>> could protect the source code from being used by the military industry.
> Depending on how it's phrased, that would be a breach of either clause 5
> or 6 of the open source definition. While some people may have moral
> qualms about the military using their work, other people may have qualms
> about homosexuals, scientists, people of a specific ethnicity and so on
> using their work. Rather than get into a debate over which groups of
> people can be discriminated against, we just forbid all discrimination.
> Practically speaking, bear in mind that most military groups probably
> have sufficient resources to "borrow" your ideas and reimplement your
> work regardless of what license you put it under.
No PST Files Ever Again
Buni Meldware Communication Suite
Email, Calendaring, ease of configuration/administration
More information about the License-discuss