I vaguely recall license terms which disallow anyone from using the code for military purposes - maybe it's time to adopt stuff like GPL/CC by extending them with an (optional) "do not use this software in machines/systems which have the power to kill/hurt people, or enable people to do so"
Terrible idea. It would also be non backwards compatible with all existing open source / free software licences. It would be a legal minefield and stop a lot open source software.
Just take the example "pornography": in most Western countries pornography is accepted and not considered as "evil", but in many Islamic countries, pornography is considered sinful.
This concerned IBM, so Crockford sent them a document saying : "I give permission for IBM, its customers, partners, and minions, to use JSLint for evil."
A better example is the one that was used on github, war.
There will always be justifications that a war is needed because of this oppressor or that incursion or this unforgivable action.
Licensing it differently is one option, but either they wont care or they will just copy the intent and make their own version.
This is a problem without a good solution at this point except to have a frank and adult understanding of the consequences of your actions, and to be politically active so that you may contribute you part to preventing your government from the continuous war.
As a practical matter in the US, if it's not a criminal matter, it's the entity/individual bringing suit against a defendant, and additionally the court who must ensure that the plaintiff has standing to bring suit.
Crockford in this particular case seems like the most likely plaintiff, but I don't know if there would be other parties who would also have standing or not (also, i'm not a lawyer, so take this as you will).
Who defines it? The judge or jury. This is the Law 101.
This is why legalese is so dense and complex, to remove as much flexibility and doubt as possible, so that you don't have a judge/jury deciding things. If you include the definition of the terms in the contract/licence then the judge/jury had to follow that.
You're confusing military purposes with "have the power to kill/hurt people".
Any desktop fits #2 if I open it up, open up the power supply, and lick the output of the mains rectifier in the switching power supply. Or consider a laptop/tablet having an uncontrolled thermal battery reaction (aka bursts into flames) on an airplane over the middle of an ocean.
Somewhat more directly, my dentist can't use a "sorta-open-source" calendaring app because people have died in dental offices from allergic reactions to injected dental antibiotics/anesthetics. Its kinda rare, but has been recorded to happen.
Simply naming or defining organizations is not as simple as it appears. Your freedom fighter group is someone else's terrorist is someone elses pacifist organization.
You need a cop-out for intention and rarity. By the time you add enough cop-outs that anyone can actually use it, you've almost certain cop-out enough that the .mil can also use it.
Comments
I vaguely recall license terms which disallow anyone from using the code for military purposes - maybe it's time to adopt stuff like GPL/CC by extending them with an (optional) "do not use this software in machines/systems which have the power to kill/hurt people, or enable people to do so"
Terrible idea. It would also be non backwards compatible with all existing open source / free software licences. It would be a legal minefield and stop a lot open source software.
Was it http://www.hacktivismo.com/about/hessla.php ?
Like the JSON license. MIT with this additional clause: The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.
Who defines what is "good" and "evil"?
Just take the example "pornography": in most Western countries pornography is accepted and not considered as "evil", but in many Islamic countries, pornography is considered sinful.
This concerned IBM, so Crockford sent them a document saying : "I give permission for IBM, its customers, partners, and minions, to use JSLint for evil."
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5138866
Makes sense for IBM, as they do have a history of that sort of thing [1].
[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/mar/29/humanities.highe...
A better example is the one that was used on github, war. There will always be justifications that a war is needed because of this oppressor or that incursion or this unforgivable action.
Licensing it differently is one option, but either they wont care or they will just copy the intent and make their own version.
This is a problem without a good solution at this point except to have a frank and adult understanding of the consequences of your actions, and to be politically active so that you may contribute you part to preventing your government from the continuous war.
As a practical matter in the US, if it's not a criminal matter, it's the entity/individual bringing suit against a defendant, and additionally the court who must ensure that the plaintiff has standing to bring suit.
Crockford in this particular case seems like the most likely plaintiff, but I don't know if there would be other parties who would also have standing or not (also, i'm not a lawyer, so take this as you will).
Who defines it? The judge or jury. This is the Law 101.
This is why legalese is so dense and complex, to remove as much flexibility and doubt as possible, so that you don't have a judge/jury deciding things. If you include the definition of the terms in the contract/licence then the judge/jury had to follow that.
You obviously didn't grow up in the same Western country I did.
Adding it to the GPL would be pretty ironic.
You're confusing military purposes with "have the power to kill/hurt people".
Any desktop fits #2 if I open it up, open up the power supply, and lick the output of the mains rectifier in the switching power supply. Or consider a laptop/tablet having an uncontrolled thermal battery reaction (aka bursts into flames) on an airplane over the middle of an ocean.
Somewhat more directly, my dentist can't use a "sorta-open-source" calendaring app because people have died in dental offices from allergic reactions to injected dental antibiotics/anesthetics. Its kinda rare, but has been recorded to happen.
Simply naming or defining organizations is not as simple as it appears. Your freedom fighter group is someone else's terrorist is someone elses pacifist organization.
You need a cop-out for intention and rarity. By the time you add enough cop-outs that anyone can actually use it, you've almost certain cop-out enough that the .mil can also use it.