Military use of FOSS

Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 17:01:32 -0500
From: "Randall Wood"
Subject: Your Advogato blog entry "Military usage of FOSS"

Sir:

It is possible that the developers of that satellite system directly
contributed something back to the FOSS community. The US DoD has a long
history of driving development of both computing and networking systems. To
name a few examples, the Internet was designed for military
command-and-control, NSA did significant development on the SELinux secure
kernal project (hosting portions of it even), and DARPA, at one point,
sponsored OpenSSH and OpenBSD development.

But that aside, a military is part of the governing aperatus of the state
(be that right or wrong), and barring use of FOSS by the military semms to
me to be barring use of FOSS to governments. If we were to bar the use of
FOSS to governments, citizens who wish to work with governments would be
practially required to use non-FOSS systems and the entire system would
collapse.

Now that I think of it, licenses that allow for free (as in no licensing
fees) use of otherwise-open source software only in certain circumstances
(say to educational software) have been in the past attacked as specifically
not being free (as in speech). Unfortunately at this moment, I can't do the
research on this.

I apologize for the free-form nature of this message, but could find no
other way of responding to your journal entry. If you are not the author of
the refered-to journal I apologize also for having taken your time.

-- 
Randall Wood

"The rules are simple. The ball is round. The game lasts 90 minutes. All the
rest is philosophy."

Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 23:11:59 +0000
To: "Randall Wood"
Subject: Re: Your Advogato blog entry "Military usage of FOSS"

Sir:

> The US DoD has a long
> history of driving development of both computing and networking systems.
Yes I know about many projects sponsored on Military money. But
whatever huge contribution Wars and Militaries made to the human
development, science and technical progress - does not change the fact
that for some people the very thought that product of their industry
helps to kill people (just like for some people it is impossible to
think about their food that at some point it was alive and breathing,
you know).
I am not THAT radical (yet) but I see the real point here.  I respect
the feeling of disgust these people have to any kind of killing and
anything related to it. And because of my symphathy to these people I
put that posting in place.

> FOSS to governments, citizens who wish to work with governments would be
> practially required to use non-FOSS systems and the entire system would
> collapse.
Yes I realize this. This is probably the main reason why I would not
immediately add "military usage not allowed" clause to the software I
feel I could change the license for. But again, the open question (for
me) is how far you can go trading your principles for the benefit of
your other principles.

> Now that I think of it, licenses that allow for free (as in no licensing
> fees) use of otherwise-open source software only in certain circumstances
> (say to educational software) have been in the past attacked as specifically
> not being free (as in speech).
I was already pointed out (and agreed) that these restrictions would
really make the software not OSS, strictly speaking. And this is
completely valid point, I think. Well, if so, it still would not be
the reason for not providing that choice, would it?

> I apologize for the free-form nature of this message, but could find no
> other way of responding to your journal entry. If you are not the author of
> the refered-to journal I apologize also for having taken your time.
No, quite opposite. First of all, it was really me. And I sincerely
thank you for your very interesting message and thoughts. And, if you
like, you do not have to be that formal in your messages.

Yours,

Sergey Udaltsov

Well... It's a very interesting clash between ethics of freedom and ethics of humanism.
I would totally agree with arguments on primates.ximian.com. In my opinion such restrictions would be a big step back, away from "free" software. By no means I wouldn't call such program "free". And I really think freedom is more valuable (even in this question).

Yes, it not "just free" any more. I agree. Proper free software delivers the message about freedom and only freedom. With the license I propose (or dual-licensing) you'd deliver two messages about two of your values.
I do not really see a serious ethical clash here. I think, even the most-freedom loving people would agree that some kinds of freedoms are apparently evil. Freedom to kill, freedom to rape, freedom to sell drugs to kids etc. So by putting ethical restrictions in your license - you just mark the people who (you think) deserve the freedom - and who do not.

Well... For me FLOSS is about cooperation, and not about separation. If we start putting 'you can't use if you...' statements in licesces, we would separate users, thus partitioning community. I really think that the strength is in unions. With the start of 'community partitioning' we would see the end of FLOSS movement.
Let's start from another point. Military organisations kill (or help killing) people. okay. It's bad. What about police? They kill people too. It's bad! Let's take anothe step: what about those who kill cattle? They kill living creatures! It's bad! Stop using our software! Thus step by step anybody can come to the software licence that wouldn''t permit product usage to nearly anybody!

About your last sentence. I think during it's history manking had enough 'they don't deserve' claims. I think that there one should limit freedeom of only one person --- of oneself. "My freedom stops where your liberty starts".
Anybody have freedom to put restricting claims in his software licence. And anybody have a freedom to restrict oneself from limiting software usage :)

Well, your point about separating the community makes sense - but only if you value the progress of FOSS more than your pacifistic principles. Which may not always be the case. Again, this is the case of trading one of your principles for the benefit of others (and putting the exchange rate on them).
This mean - for some people it would be more acceptable to separate the community of the users of his software (sure he would never be able to split users of other FOSS) than to be in the same community with the people he despise. Does it make sense? IMHO yes.
Regarding the idea that a person can only restrict himself - I'd say this is not exactly true as long as we discuss the product of someone's labor/creativity. Because if you push this idea to the limit, you'd forbid author to choose the license for his code - you'd forbid (legally?:) anything but FOSS licenses. GPLing your code is a matter of choice, it is not an obligation. You make this choice because of your values. And because of your other values you'd choose some anti-military "extension" to GPL, if you like.

well, I think this is what freedom about - a freedom for any use of your software, isn't it?

Not exactly. The freedom can be limitless. Even GPL restricts you - you cannot close derived code. It restricts the freedom in order to protect the freedom.
Well, I already agreed - the license with that kind of restriction is not free software any more, strictly speaking. You might think of it in terms of dual licensing. The second license is trivial - forbidding.

oh, yeah

then, you should have a license like "it is not alloved to use this work or derived works in military, defence or in any product, produced by Microsoft corporations or any company related to Microsoft"... :)

Strictly speaking, you're right, I don't think this is a free software. But, honestly, DoD could give something back - that would be the contribution to the FOSS, and I personally would be fully satisfied with that.

Well, of course, some people can put Microsoft into the list. And Jews. And Russians. And bikers. Whatever. If the person is dumb enough - ok. (Though I have doubts he/she would produce something worthy). If a person has a message to deliver to the world - why could not he/she? It is about freedom of speech, after all.

DoD always gives something back - I would not be able to deny it. At the end of the day, the maiden name of Internet is arpanet. But if you compare what they give and what they take - the difference has always stroke my eyes. And again - they give back not because they are so goodwilling - but just because they cannot avoid giving.

I just don't see the problem. If somebody wants to distribute his software for free - it's fine. If somebody wants everybody to distribute his software for free only it's also fine. If somebody does not want the military to use his software, it is nothing wrong with such position either. It is no problem to add corresponding clause in the license. There is no reason to come together and agree on that, I think.

The actual problem is that some people see their participation a movement that follows some governing principle of software being free as a road to freedom in more common sense. It is just not a true freedom.

I would even go further and suggest that free software is an antiliberal idea. In normal circumstances it is not that evident, but this argument highlights it well.

Well, this is true to some extent. If you choose to go after the freedom along with the community - you have to think about your position in relation to the position of the community. And yes it is usually the way FOSS folks go.
But surely noone stops you from going alone and your own way - even if you share the goal with other people.
There are good reasons to participate in community - though in some cases it puts some charges and obligations on you.

Non Military GPL - Bad idea, worse idea

Thanks for setting up this discussion, here is the mail I sent offlist, edited for spelling only:

Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 20:24:16 +0000 (GMT)
From: Alan Horkan horkana maths tcd ie
To: sergey udaltsov gmail com
Subject: Non Military GPL - Bad idea, worse idea

I do not yet have the right arguments to properly convince you but I must
say that all politics aside it would be a spectacularly bad idea to try
and exclude the military from using GPL software.

The simplest issues are that well intended efforts aimed at excluding
particular groups (military) leads to misguided attempts at excluding
others (religious, some people howled at the idea of Christian Ubuntu, not
to mention other religious extremists).

There the comes the even more complicated matter of what you mean by
military use, and how workable the idea would really be.  I know Amnesty
international often complains about "dual use" technologies which turn out
to be thinly veiled military technology, and there are plenty of pieces of
electronics from calculators to clock radios that are useful to any
military without being military devices.

It is a shame your journal on advogato does not include a space for
comments and I wish I had more time to convince you that although your
sentiments are noble the restrictions you suggest can come to no good.

I hope you will think long and hard about the issue and perhaps discuss
it with other people you know.

Sincerely

Alan Horkan

http://advogato.org/person/AlanHorkan/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/alanhorkan
http://alanhorkan.livejournal.com/

Re: Non Military GPL - Bad idea, worse idea

Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 20:48:29 +0000
To: "Alan Horkan"
Subject: Re: Non Military GPL - Bad idea, worse idea

Hello Alan

Thanks a lot for your insightful and interesting message. Actually I
absolutely have no plans to change any existing licenses. It is just
some people (I am not the first one having this idea) sometime think
it would be handy to have _standard_ approach for this case - IF
someone would want it.
And sure I never meant standard GPL should include that (or any other)
kind of restriction by default.

> The simplest issues are that well intended efforts aimed at exlcuding
> particular groups (military) leads to misguided attempts at excluding
> others (relgious, some people howled at the idea of Christian Ubuntu, not
> to mention other religious extremists).
Yes, that is true. If we say "people A are bad", someone always can
say "people B are bad". But this is life - people have ideas and they
value each other, better of worse. Choosing OS license for your
software, among other things, is a message about your values. This is
particularly true about GPL. So, your message can be even more complex
- if you add standard "extension" about people you think are bad.
Everyone has right to say "I do not like this", right? Yes, in this
case your software is not "just OSS" any more. That is unevitable -
and a person doing this should realize all consequences.

> There the comes the even more complicated matter of what you mean by
> military use, and how workable the idea would really be.
Yes, this is the worst technical problem of the whole issue. I do not
know how to formalize this criteria. That is why I called lawyers:)
But I think if your criteria is coarse (and misses some situations -
giving false positives or the other way around) - it is not a major
trouble, as long as it is clear enough (no "grey" areas). Though
IANAL.

Regards,

Sergey

Another comment from jabber:
---
Just a comment on your army blog post -- take a look at Grass (http://grass.itc.it/), it's one of the biggest FLOSS projects ever (measured by LOC). It was originally (in 1970s) created for the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers for the management of the land owned by the army (and that's a lot of land!).
---

As I already said - I never denied all the advances which were made because of military development. But the price for it may be a bit too high. And the return rate - I would not overestimated it. If (in some better world:) same resources would be spent on the science/technology directly - the progress might be more impressive. And keep in mind - military development is never interested in publishing the most advanced technologies - just because they might benefit potential enemies.

Another bit from email:
---
sergey, hi,

i have an ability to think a bit outside the box - at different levels.

i am happy to consider issues like 'the greater good', and spending as
much of my creativity and efforts as possible trying to find, as a
matter of priority, the 'best good', settling for the 'least good' and
then going down to the 'lesser evil' if i am really running out of time
and ideas.

to decide that free software should be cut out of the process of
evolution of mankind, where reliable software is needed the most, is,
i believe, complete madness.

and - you can't stop it. unprincipled governments are going to use free
software irrespective of licensing. principled governments are likely
to blind-eye licensing as well - because... well... who's ever going to
find out!
---

provides access

Thank. It makes me feel great when I read all these stories. It helps me from hopelessness and make me more stronger to fly… thank… for everything. Love

Re: provides access

you're mostly welcome