Open Source Code And War 923
"Should Open Source developers help the U.S. prepare for war with Iraq?" Roblimo has a piece on NewsForge which addresses that question by showing a specific way that the U.S. military is using Free and Open Source software (in simulator-based training for Blackhawk helicopters), and letting one of the developers involved speak for himself. If software is Free, doesn't that already answer the question of who can use it?
Article slashdotted (Score:-1, Informative)
Free Software and GPL supporters (and many coders) are virulently anti-war, and many are specifically against the U.S. invading Iraq. One well-regarded project, Bluefish, has a link on its site to an anti-war page. Could the use of popular GPL and Free Software packages in what many people overseas view as the "U.S. War Machine" cause strife and dissension among Free Software developers?
In another interesting question to the free source movement, one has to wonder whether using or participating in slashdot is a reasonable thing to do, given slashdot's editors history of censorship and secrecy.
Awtrey: I think the debate has caused strife and dissension in groups with less cohesion than Free Software / Open Source groups have. The chance of us avoiding some level of public debate on the issue seems unavoidable.
The war issue has an amazing ability to polarize opinion. There are people with good hearts and good intentions on both sides. My wife was born in Iraq and her family moved here to escape Saddam and the Baath party 30 years ago.
This makes the issue especially touchy around here.
She and her family hate Saddam. They have stories that would curl your toes about him and his psychopathic offspring Uday. It is not uncommon for people who make a quiet joke at a party on Friday to disappear with all their family, including cousins, before the weekend is over. They have no due process, they have no court to appeal to, the people are simply gone and never come back.
NewsForge: I take it, then, that you and your wife have no problem with the U.S. invading Iraq?
Awtrey: When people tell me that civilians will die in a war, I tell them that Saddam has already spilled more Iraqi blood than any aggressor. He is not a polite, reasonable man. He kills without thought. His son Uday rapes little girls and chops off the heads of prostitutes on the street.
War or no war, this man needs killing like a rabid dog. And Iraq needs to be free.
My wife, Hala, doesn't like George Bush Sr. or Jr. She remembers a time when George Bush Sr. was at the CIA and paid Saddam during the war with Iran. That war would be like a war between Florida and Georgia. Most of the actual people of the countries are related in some way. Politics aside, if there were a button she could push and kill just Saddam, she or any member of her family would push it. It's a hard decision when you know "the Iraqi people" as cousins, aunts, uncles, and have to risk them to save the country in the long term. She doesn't want her family hurt any more by anyone. Saddam is a little hurt every day, the war is a larger hurt, but likely a shorter period of time. The devil you know? The devil you don't? It's a hard choice.
NewsForge:The problem -- to some -- with GPL-licensed software is the fact that anyone can use it. How would you feel seeing some of your code used by Saddam Hussein's people. Or Osama bin Laden's? Or by the Chinese government to help prevent full Internet access?
Awtrey: No clear opinions yet.
I know there have been reports of them using PGP / GPG to encrypt messages. That has to give Phil Zimmermann the shivers sometimes. One of the things life in America has taught me is that the words spoken by a racist skinhead are just as important as the words I speak. It doesn't mean I agree with them, it means that the right to speak is important, not what is said. If Free Software is about Free Speech, then we have to suck up the fact that people will use our code for things we don't agree with. I don't agree with drug use, but that doesn't stop drug dealers from using Apache or Mozilla or GPG. I can only state what I am for; peace, goodness, truth.
I am with a crowd of people making statements. I hope that the sounds we make together are mostly peace, goodness, truth when heard by others, but all I can control is my own voice.
Re:Not with my source codes! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:A double-edged sword... (Score:3, Informative)
1. Assuming the US bombs Iraq, targeting software is such that if it misses it's target, it would probably land on top of civilians.
2. Targeting software uses neither Open Source nor Microsoft. It is generally designed for proprietary real-time OSen (VxWorks and "home-grown" come to mind).
Re:Not with my source codes! (Score:5, Informative)
Furthermore, software under such a license would cease to be Free Software, as it would restrict Freedom 0. [gnu.org] Such a piece of software would also not be free under the DFSG [debian.org] either.
Re:And who uses Open Source is an issue now? (Score:1, Informative)
Gays want the freedom to be openly gay, but then when the local KKK holds a "Gays are immoral" and "Niggers pollute our race," there's no shortage of people that want to look for means of weasling away their right to assemble and speak.
Pro-abortion women want the right to kill undeveloped children, but if someone kicks a pregnant woman and kills her undeveloped child, she wants that person to be responsible for murder.
A lot of people want the freedom to express their views about morality, but they don't want others to be able to view violent, sexual, or simply just crude forms of entertainment. Their morality should be freely professed, but no one else's should.
People want their profession to be valuable, and to be compensated for each and every moment of work they engage in, but have no qualms with receiving and distributing copies of movies, music, books, and any other product that is easy to devalue. Afterall, "companies are rich and evil," or "they make enough money," or "I'm too poor to pay," or "I'd pay if they'd charge me what I want to pay and give it to me the way I want it."
Taxing the wealthy with large rates is good, but if there were suddenly no small group to tax, and suddenly 65% of their meager wages were being taken to provide for the less fortunate, that would be wrong.
In general people simply want to maximize their standing. They want to maximize their security, their financial stability, and their personal freedoms. If you are a financial or intellectual impedance, then equality no longer applies to you. They don't take positions because they're rational, or because they're what's best for the system as a whole, they simply support what's easiest for them.
Remember the FSF philosophy (Score:2, Informative)
A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere."
Yes: anyone, anywhere.
Re:Who can use free software (Score:2, Informative)
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
Of Course an Open License Can be Restricted (Score:2, Informative)
Thinking and having opinions is a bunch of crap. (Score:2, Informative)
To Awtrey's credit, he has thought the issue through and considered the effects of his actions, and is willing to engage in a reasoned discussion of his decisions. What I can't understand is other people's unwillingness to go through the same process with regards to their own opinions and actions.
Al Qaeda is known to use PGP -- Ask Zimmerman (Score:4, Informative)
Quotes from Zimmerman regarding developing technology that might be used by criminals and terrorists: [liquidtodd.com]
By the way, the U.S. Military is not the bad guy here, and by no means do I want anyone to think that I feel that way. Should we go to war, it's our kids that will be the targets of bullets and most likely gas and bio shit, all because in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s, our elected leaders sowed the seeds of discontent around the world, and ignored the crop.
I hope our military uses whatever they can, however they can, legally. If you have a problem with the war, run for the PTA, the local council, state government, or federal government. Did you remember to vote?
open source and... (Score:5, Informative)
A related quote, on the selective enforcement of laws:
Re:Because if the US military... (Score:2, Informative)
By the way, when you crash the Blackhawk simulator you get a red-screen-of-death. I'd love to see a tux screen saver while the simulator reboots.
Re:A double-edged sword... (Score:4, Informative)
Gotta Love that Bill of Rights.
Re:muslims are all evil! (Score:2, Informative)
What do you base this on? Polls on the subject have shown that Americans are dramatically misinformed on this subject, with huge numbers of them believing that there were Iraq citizens among the 9/11 criminals, and more believing in evidence tying Iraq to Bin Laden that, in fact, doesn't exist.
Re:Because if the US military... (Score:5, Informative)
Now, I know the use of "unilateral war" is a great rhetoric-filled way to drum up opposition for the action, but, well... it's a falsehood. Try again?
Secrecy orders and eminent domain (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not with my source codes! (Score:2, Informative)
Open Source Definition (Score:1, Informative)
Note the following provisions of the Open Source Definition (http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php)
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
Rationale: In order to get the maximum benefit from the process, the maximum diversity of persons and groups should be equally eligible to contribute to open sources. Therefore we forbid any open-source license from locking anybody out of the process.
Some countries, including the United States, have export restrictions for certain types of software. An OSD-conformant license may warn licensees of applicable restrictions and remind them that they are obliged to obey the law; however, it may not incorporate such restrictions itself.
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
Rationale: The major intention of this clause is to prohibit license traps that prevent open source from being used commercially. We want commercial users to join our community, not feel excluded from it.
Shifting arguments and red herrings (Score:3, Informative)
Great conspiracy theory. You chase UFO's too? There don't have to be al Queda *IN* Iraq for Iraq to *collaborate* with them toward a common end. Yes, bin Laden has condemned Iraq as a secular nation, but that doesn't mean they both don't consider us enemy #1 - and therefore willing to work together. Your assumption that "we would have already invaded" doesn't fly.
Blaming Clinton, the typical republican excuse, doesn't carry any water. Clinton inherited the situation from Bush Sr. His excuse wasn't "humanitarian," but "no UN mandate" for a regiem change. Just like we have now.
Carries a lot of water. Yeah, the UN was weak - but had Clinton done something about it in '92 when Saddaam sensed weakness and started blocking inspectors, we wouldn't have the problem we have today. At that point, the coalition was strong, he could have more easily pressured the UN, and there was more momentum toward disarming Iraq at the time. But what did he do? Jack shit. So he has to carry a lot of the weight for the problem, because he could have influenced the UN but he didn't even try. Put it this way - you can't blame Bush Jr. for not solving the problem without blaming Clinton at least as much. You could contend that neither is at fault at best an dblame the weak UN instead.
The problem [terrorism] isn't one of government, its one of culture. We do for the House of Saud what we did for Japan after WWII. We park several armored divisions in downtown Mecca and change the culture with blue jeans, VCRs and constitutional government. To that end, Hussein could be an asset, as he already oversees a secular government and a fairly westernized society.
You're being a bit generous with "fairly westernized" - they don't seem to have any of the characteristics unless you consider a military dictator as opposed to a religious dictator "western." I don't care how you define the problem, you have yet to advocate ANY solution. Unfortunately, Saddaam isn't as likely as the house of Saud to let our tanks in. And as for constitutional government in Saudi Arabia - did I miss something?
So he's used them in his own country's military actions. Big deal. To date, they havn't been used in *any* terrorist act.
And you don't have to be a damned genius to realize that if he'll use them on his own people, he'll use them on anyone else. As for whether they've been used in any terrorist act yet...do you want to wait? Want another 9/11?
Box cutters and ammonium nitrate seem to do the trick for most terrorists. We should be focusing our resources on that.
Yeah, and we are. For one, box cutters will never work again - didn't even work on the fourth plane. And there are only so many people you can kill with ammonium nitrate/diesel oil bombs, as they're pretty crude. And since Oklahoma City, ammonium nitrate (and other oxidizers) are HIGHLY controlled.
Bottom line - you criticize the planned war. OK, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with the conclusion, but your arguments against it are...what? Claims of conspiracies and fabricated evidence? That's ridiculously lame. Go with the cost, ($100b) if anything. Go with the slippery slope argument - basically, that getting rid of *just* Iraq won't work without Syria, etc. Or fear of the scorched-earth policy that Saddaam will likely follow if deposed. Or power-vacuum theory. You have so many choices, don't go with the shitty argument. Do realize, though, that an anti-war stance ultimately admits that we have effectively no hope of stopping terrorism, as its sources will go unchecked. You have no alternative solution, the UN has done *absolutely* nothing - so, again, other than *living* with terrorism, which I don't find particularly attractive, what do we do other than destroy all regimes that support it?
Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War (Score:3, Informative)
and where, exactly, did the iranian "monster" come from? well, in 1941 the allies invaded iran and deposed the shah. miracle of miracles, the new power structure in iran was decided by an election. the guy they elected was a chap called Mossadegh. Mossadegh did a lot of things... most of them very popular with the iranian people (he was even time's man of the year for 1951!). unfortunately, he decided to nationalize the iranina oil reserves. such a move was not popular with the us government as it limited foreign (read: us and british) investment in/control of the oil industry in iran. the solution was for the cia to orchestrate an overthrow of Mossadegh and a re-implemnentation of the shah. this, of course, they did and gave the people of iran 26 years of murderous dictatorship.
the rule of the shah resulted in two things in iran: 1. a hatred of the shah and a desire to oust him 2. a distrust of the united states who had put him there in the first place. eventually in 1979, the shah was ousted by kohmeni and ko.
a simple formula: you subvert a nation and its people will hate you. the us continues to prop up dictators and foster bad will around the world, then to contain the situation they develop more dictators (and develop more bad will).
Oil? I wonder, why we even went to Somalia, or why we are still in South Korea
south korea was a cold-war anti-domino play. why don't you ask your government why they bombed hanoi or cambodia instead? why don't you ask your government where they were when rwanda needed help? how about east timor? why don't you ask your government why they supported burtal dictatorships in el salvador and honduras in the 80s. were all of these decisions made to help the people of these nations? the united states government is not concerned with the lives and well being of foreign civilians unless it is convenient for public relations. that's realpolitik.
Neither Pakistan, nor India, nor Israel have ever joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaties or otherwise promised not to develop WMDs...
so iraq merely has to not recommit to the nnpt andeverything is fine? unlikely. hey! you know what country is the biggest owner and producer of weapons of mass destruction? the united states. forget about nukes, there are over one million pounds of nerve gas in the pine bluff arsenal in arkansas right now. go and inspect it yourself.
The French? Oh, they just can't get over the loss of the "grand nacion" (sp?) status
so it's hubris? hm. there are some other nations that may have a little more in that department than the french...
Re:Open now doesn't mean open forever (Score:3, Informative)
We are very careful not to incorporate GPL code into products for military use. BSD libraries get thrown into military simulators all the time. So do LGPL ones (according to normal procedures).
If someone did start pulling GPL code into military products, it's quite likely that one of the many contractors who code for the Pentagon will blow the whistle on it (particularly if the violation was committed by someone from a competing corporation).
I know I would, and many of my colleagues feel the same way. It might be only a minority that cares about this- most are happy to stick with either Microsoft.NET or 20 year old FORTRAN/Ada programs- but enough contracting coders as GPL sympathizers to make the risk of infringment too big for the Pentagon to ignore.
And yes, they have thought about these topics [egovos.org].
They keep it within their organization, it is theirs.
That might be technically true, but it's irrelevant, and easily misinterpreted as meaningful. If somehow, by random chance, it stays in the organization, then they're fine. But if they instruct any of the members of the organization not to send copies to outsiders, then they have just violated the GPL.
Now, since the Pentagon has around 1 million employees (depending on how you count), software that it owns may sometimes seem like open source, as a huge number of people are allowed to see and modify it. Sometimes this behavior is formalized (for instance, this webpage [google.com] used to collect patches for a military simulation product. But it seems to have been recently discontinued). But the Pentagon cannot just grab GPL code and wildly send modified versions to every single enlisted man. (They'd like to do this- Qt [trolltech.com] in particular has been turned down for inclusion in several military projects, because we can't get by the GPL licensing)