- What kind of use is to considered military? Dual use goods? Software running on some computer in a military department that is used for "civil purposes" (think of some accounting software in the accounting department)? Projects that are also financed by some military pot of money (lots of civil research e.g. in the USA is financed by DARPA)? Consider that the precursor of the internet (ARPAnet) belongs to this category. Civil defense systems that are not owned/built by the military but by private security companies?
- If OSS people would tolerate such a restriction, the next people will come and also want to add restrictions to the usage of their software. At the beginning these will even serve noble purposes, but the time will come when people will use this kind of restructions to build their political agenda, such as
* must not be used for military purposes
* must not be used for animal experiments
* must not be used to produce hate speech
* must not be used for misogynistic purposes
* must not be used for homophobic purposes
* must only used by white people
* must not be used on Intel processors
* must only be used on RISC-V processors
* must only be used by citizens of democratic states
* only for noncommercial purposes
* only for research purposes
etc. So it is accepted practise in FOSS communities not to consider usage restrictions as acceptable.
Sure but it is also part of the author's own freedom to choose what his software is used for.
A lot has been talked about the restrictions of open source.
If I want my program used for things I agree with only I should have that right. If OSI says my license isn't good, then I'll be proud to have a non-conforming license.
You have the right to do what you want with your copyrighted intellectual property. Nobody disputes that. Just don't call whatever you want "open source" when it isn't.
If I want my program used for things I agree with only I should have that right. If OSI says my license isn't good, then I'll be proud to have a non-conforming license.
The OP talked of "open sourcing". This implies that his software will satisfy freedom 0 - which is not possible with a military use restriction.
EDIT: If he just meant "releasing the source code" he would surely have used this wording.
Comments
There are lots problem with this kind of terms:
- What kind of use is to considered military? Dual use goods? Software running on some computer in a military department that is used for "civil purposes" (think of some accounting software in the accounting department)? Projects that are also financed by some military pot of money (lots of civil research e.g. in the USA is financed by DARPA)? Consider that the precursor of the internet (ARPAnet) belongs to this category. Civil defense systems that are not owned/built by the military but by private security companies?
- If OSS people would tolerate such a restriction, the next people will come and also want to add restrictions to the usage of their software. At the beginning these will even serve noble purposes, but the time will come when people will use this kind of restructions to build their political agenda, such as
* must not be used for military purposes
* must not be used for animal experiments
* must not be used to produce hate speech
* must not be used for misogynistic purposes
* must not be used for homophobic purposes
* must only used by white people
* must not be used on Intel processors
* must only be used on RISC-V processors
* must only be used by citizens of democratic states
* only for noncommercial purposes
* only for research purposes
etc. So it is accepted practise in FOSS communities not to consider usage restrictions as acceptable.
Sure but it is also part of the author's own freedom to choose what his software is used for.
A lot has been talked about the restrictions of open source.
If I want my program used for things I agree with only I should have that right. If OSI says my license isn't good, then I'll be proud to have a non-conforming license.
You have the right to do what you want with your copyrighted intellectual property. Nobody disputes that. Just don't call whatever you want "open source" when it isn't.
The OP talked of "open sourcing". This implies that his software will satisfy freedom 0 - which is not possible with a military use restriction.
EDIT: If he just meant "releasing the source code" he would surely have used this wording.