I saw this on Newsforge about a project called GPU which is a Gnutella client that creates ad-hoc supercomputers by allowing individual PCs on the network to share CPU resources with each other. To make matters more interesting the developers licensed it under essentially the GNU GPL, however their software may not be used for military purposes. The modified license can be found here.
Given the GPL is all about giving users rights and seeing the recent discussion going on through the comments on the Newsforge page, I beg to ask - is being able to use the works of the free software community for military purposes really a ‘right’?
I don’t really think so. I don’t believe in solving problems through violence which is what the military is predominately for and given the recent state of world affairs, I can definitely see why the developers of GPU decided to disallow the military to make use of their code. If I were a programmer and the US military or the IDF or even the Bundeswehre wanted to use my code, I would refuse.
I can see the flip side of the argument where the military exists to protect a country however given especially the military action we’ve witnessed these past 5 years world wide all in the name of protecting us from foreign threats I stand by my views. Ultimately I do not trust the military just as I do not trust a government that puts so much of our tax dollars into military spending. Therefore in a world where this is happening and on the rise I do not like the idea of the military or military bodies making use of my work.
As for artwork - I don’t mind. 
I want my work to be used for constructive purposes. Do whatever you like with it but try to do some good, which is not what I’ve been seeing from the world’s armed forces as of late.
Finally, given that many programmers out there still license their code under a propriety license, I think bitching at pacifistic hackers who don’t want their code to be used by the military is pretty ridiculous. Bitch at someone else.
8 comments
Indeed this clause to the licence is interesting. I am a pacifist, I dispise war, but I don’t agree with the clause.
The military can be bad (look at the US army, the military in Burma etc.) but there are others that are paceful, and don’t do much more than protect boarders and do some peace keeping (like the Irish). To have a clause which states that there may not be military use of software suggests that all the military are bad, tarring every with the same brush.
I agree with dylunio. On the other hand, I would mind if my artwork was used for some military purposes, such as painting it on weapons.
Well regardless of my personal thoughts I think it would be hypocritical to campaign for software freedom and then decide that certain groups don’t qualify, so the Free Software Foundation is at least being consistent. That’s one of the things I like about them: they (as a group) are always very consistent about things. It’s a pity about their license. ;-)
I’ll have to jump on the bandwagon and agree with dylunio, tbuitenh and Nicholas. I do despise war and all sorts of violence, but I think that a Free Software license is not really the best way to fight it especially considering that the meaning of “military” also includes things that don’t have much to do with war or even real violence.
A police is military, in a way, too. Government enforcement of laws can be considered a military system and in many cases it is good that it exists.
free is free and you cannot dictate terms of use.
Sounds like a good time to reintroduce national service for all under 30 to carry a weapon or write code for the military
Well I guess I was assuming that they military would not slap one of my splashes or wallpapers on their bombs because, well, there really isn’t any logical reason for it.
I can definitely understand the views that you and everyone above that comment threshold has too, but I also respect the views of the GPU developers and acknowledge their license terms for their software.
Interesting comment coming from someone who uses and supports proprietary software. Back to topic - the developers of GPU definitely can dictate what you do with their code. They are permitted to modify the GPL and add a no military use clause - as they did - just like creators of proprietary software can dictate the terms of use for their code. Note that every time you hastily click on the “Agree” button when you use and/or install proprietary software you are agreeing legally to a set of terms of use for the program(s) you are using/installing.
I don’t see why. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights apposes compulsory draughts and conscriptions. If it came to doing some good for the community I live in, I would be happy to do a community service of some description, and I consider myself to be doing that to an extent already by upholding human rights, promoting free culture and free software.
I would gladly help physically if the community in which I lived asked it of me, however I will not train for combat just as much as I don’t support the military doctrine.
how do you define military when concerning application development. for example does the fact NATO uses Exchange and Solaris, Singapore military uses Open Office/Star Office, mean that those vendors are writing apps for the military or just the fact the military can use them, you will find the tightrope will be very hard to walk and balance on between use of and developed for, or modified for use
good thing you live in Australia then where freedom of choice is currently available…wasn’t too long ago you would have had a different choice and not one of your making as national service was compulsory.
Many countries have compulsory national service (some for woman too) like Israel, Singapore, Finland, Malaysia and many others. You have a choice there too, do the service or spend the same time (2 years in Singapore) in jail.
so if you would gladly do community service if required why not do anyhow?
It doesn’t matter how I define military because it matters solely what it means officially in the legal clause that it was mentioned in, in which case I am not sure and would probably (and sadly) have to resort to asking a lawyer.
I don’t care or have much against if any military uses GNU/Linux. I don’t mind it if they develop it and give something back to the community.
I’m German of nationality so if I were living in Germany by this time next year I would have to do national service however I can choose whether that would be military service or community service such as serving in a hospital or some-such (though I am not up to date on the specifics).
Right now? Well I guess because a) I’m busy with my college education, b) I consider my work for the free software/culture community something for the community and c) because physical contributions to the community have not been asked of me.
Note I prefer to do work for the community, whether that is locally, the community in which I physically live or whether that is the global community on the Internet. I don’t like the idea of ‘national’ service because I don’t really like the idea of countries as such. I think we are all human beings — you and I are quite similar — and thus for me countries and national borders only segregate us. If I do ‘service’ then I would like to do it in such a way that many people can benefit from it — I don’t really want to discriminate by serving only my ‘country’.
A few years back when I was a Scouts Australia participant I helped out in numerous community events whether it was cleaning up, planting trees, going on junior camps to teach and oversee the ‘cubs’ (younger scouts). :)