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?
Not with my source codes! (Score:-1, Interesting)
Interesting licensing idea.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Does anyone know of an OSS license that includes some statement to the effect of: "This software is free for use, redistribution, and modification by any entity for any purpose, as long as any form of it is never used for military purposes." ???
Re:Not with my source codes! (Score:5, Interesting)
Now you taint the ability for Governments to switch to linux and escape the Microsoft licenses propogating less freedom in the world.
Congratulations on helping destroy the goal of Free software. I only hope no one uses your projects anyway. Open your eyes to the big picture.
On Socially Responsible Programming (Score:4, Interesting)
Military Censorship (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't live in the US, so its a bit of a gray area for me.
Hard to avoid (Score:2, Interesting)
If there is a top secret project that uses your Software, how are you ever going to find out about it? Like if someone would use LingoTeach to train some guys who will be dropped behind the lines and need to speak some obscure language, this operation is most likely so secret that we never even hear about it.
Closed Source (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Not with my source codes! (Score:3, Interesting)
As I read it, the GPL is politically neutral. it doesn't matter if you are a liberal, conservative, dicatator or saint, you have the same rights, and you can't take away those rights from others that use your code.
Its about bonified equality of use. It doesn't presume use, good or evil. The goal, it would seem, is to allow everyone to freely use the software to achieve their goals.
To put these "no war" use limitations is not only silly and purely politically motivated (its not anti-war, its anti-Bush. Even Sheryl Crow was doing USO tours in Bosnia when Clinton was in office, and now wears anti-military shirts. Hypocrite). Then its a matter of interpretation. What if the Govt. wanted to use it in the Bosnian conflict. Was that a war, a police action, or a rescue of Muslims from Christians? Depends on who you ask.
Re:Humane Considerations (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't want to go completely off-topic, but I'd like to know why not. I've been looking for somebody, anybody, who could convince me that war is not the best option in this situation. What's your argument?
You don't have to respond here, but if you've got a minute, come post a reply in any of my journal articles. I'm really interested in hearing what you have to say.
Re:muslims are all evil! (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, US public opinion is just barely in favor of attacking Iraq. The latest poll, which came out about two weeks ago, indicated that about 60% of Americans support the administration's plan to invade Iraq with support of a coalition of allies and at least tacit UN approval.
War is not a popular thing. Never has been, never will be. Unfortunately, whether or not it's popular has no effect whatsoever on whether or not it's right.
Oh, and the bit about terrorism? Americans are well aware that our actions in Afghanistan were motivated by 9/11, but that our actions in Iraq basically are not. The Bush Doctrine says that the threat of international terrorism is so great that regimes that support, encourage, or tolerate terrorist groups post a direct threat to the United States, but that's just one more nail in the Baath government's coffin. For the rest of it, we're just trying to finally, after 12 long years, finish the Gulf War. It never ended, because Iraq never accepted the terms of the 1991 cease fire agreement. It's gotten to the point where they either accept the terms-- which Mr. Hussein has indicated that he will not do-- or we bring down the Baath government and install a new regime that will accept the terms.
We Americans know exactly why we're doing this. I sometimes think that the rest of the world doesn't, though.
Re:Not with my source codes! (Score:5, Interesting)
Hello, McFly? If you want to kill open-source, start adding weird and useless conditions until you have a EULA like Microsoft. "The military can't use it," "You can't use this software if the company produces carbon-based pollution," "You can't use this software if you are involved in cutting down rainforests," "You can't use this software if you used a car to get to work today," "You can't use this software if you |insert liberal activist agenda here|."
Free software is free software. If you're going to start putting conditions on who can and can't use it you might as well remove the word "free" and just call it "Discrimination-promoting software."
Pretty much the plan in ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Not with my source codes! (Score:1, Interesting)
Pledge of Allegiance: One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all...
Interesting combination. You want a nation 'Under God' without discrimination. Pick one.
Not a free software issue (Score:3, Interesting)
The question of intellectual property is entirely beside the point. I remember that, when downloading Oracle for Linux, I was required to fill out an HTML form affirming that I would not use the product for the development of nuclear weapons. Somehow, I have a hard time picturing Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong Il saying, "Well, shit. I can't use Oracle for my clandestine nuclear program because of this license. I guess I'll have to use MySQL instead." The same is true of commercial software. Does anyone believe an export license (or for that matter, a licensing fee) would stop anyone from either purchasing a boxed copy in the US or Europe or just downloading a copy from alt.binaries.warez.ibm-pc? If you don't want your code to be misused, don't release it. If you release it, it eventually, inevitably will be misused.
Several years ago, I completed work on a library and set of tools for textual- and communication-traffic analysis. Among the things you could do with the tools was determining authority relationships between people in an organization on the basis of the patterns of their email communications. Another interesting application, which I tested with a full non-binaries Usenet feed, was a surprisingly effective system for determining the political affiliation of posters on the basis of their non-political postings. (For the curious, I used a sample group of 1,000 posters who made consistent ideological posts to political newsgroups as well as non-political posts to non-political newsgroups.) The accuracy rate over a six month period approached 95%.
Concluding that such code could be used by governments to track political dissidents, I was reluctant to release the code. Once John Ashcroft and John Poindexter appeared on the scene, I destroyed the source. This was probably pointless, as the algorithms being used are well-understood -- only the particular combination of algorithms was novel -- and the NSA probably has similar software written by much smarter guys than me, but when my own government, much less foreign tyrants, is arresting people without charges and holding them incommunicado in undisclosed locations, I didn't want to be responsible for contributing to the next round of political arrests.
Contrary to what the above seems to imply, I don't think inventors ought to be held responsible for the misuse of their inventions. I do think that inventors ought to be held responsible for failing to consider the potential consequences of misuse, however. In my case, I decided the potential benefits were outweighed by the potential abuses and decided not to release. Ultimately, that's all you can do if you are concerned about abuses, for the simple reason that the people who are likely to abuse your code are not going to be stopped by legal fictions like the GPL, copyrights, patents, or anything less substantial than the barrel of a gun.
Re:Interesting licensing idea.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Information (Score:2, Interesting)
Define military uses... (Score:3, Interesting)
for the sake of argument, let's say you can ban the military from using open source. what about those linux clusters that help break "bad guy" encryption, or the clusters they use to similate any number of things including nuclear weapon blasts. would you rather we go back to dropping nuks on remote south pacific islands?
how about this...i'm in the US Air Force. does that mean i can't run linux on all my machines in my dorm room? i know it's a stretch, but i do live on a military base and use my computers to contact people in my office regarding work (unclassified of course). couldn't that be taken as "use by the government"? what about a previous posters thought of saying "can't be downloaded for use by members of the military"?
-frozen
Re:muslims are all evil! (Score:3, Interesting)
Short answer: we're still trying to end the Gulf War. The long answer is going to have to start with a history lesson. I hope you'll take the time to read it, and to understand.
On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded neighboring Kuwait. That same day, the United Nations Security Council (UNSEC) adopted resolution 660, demanding that Iraq withdraw its forces immediately and unconditionally to the positions they were in on August 1.
Between August 6 and November 28, UNSEC adopted 12 resolutions on the problem, finally adopting resolution 678 on November 29. Resolution 678 authorized UNSEC member states, in particular the US-led Allied Coalition, to use "all necessary means" to enforce the will of the Security Council if Iraq refused to comply by January 15.
Iraq didn't comply. There was a war. On February 27, 1991, the US-led Coalition announced a unilateral, temporary cease-fire to discuss with Iraq the terms of a permanent, formal cease-fire and an end to the war. On March 2, UNSEC adopted resolution 686, which recognized the temporary cease-fire and called on Iraq to accept the Coalition's terms. On March 3, Iraq agreed to the terms, and the formal cease-fire was signed on April 6. On April 8, UNSEC adopted resolution 687 which called on Iraq, as a condition of the cease-fire, to "unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of all chemical and biological weapons... [and] all ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres." Resolution 687 also establised a United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and tasked them with verifying-- not enforcing, but verifying-- Iraq's compliance.
Almost immediately, Iraq began to defy the will of UNSEC and the Allied Coalition. On August 15, 1991, UNSEC adopted resolution 707 in which they "condemn[ed] Iraq's serious violation of a number of its obligations under section C of resolution 687," and "demand[ed] that Iraq provide full, final and complete disclosure... of all aspects of its programmes," "allow the Special Commission, the IAEA and their Inspection Teams immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access," "cease immediately any attempt to conceal, or any movement or destruction of any material or equipment," and so on. If these demands sound familiar, they should. We've been making them since 1991.
For the next five years, UNSCOM tried in vain to verify Iraq's compliance. On June 12, 1996, UNSEC adopted resolution 1060, which "deplore[d] the refusal of the Iraqi authorities to allow access to sites designated by the Special Commission," and "demand[ed] that Iraq cooperate fully with the Special Commission." On June 21, 1997, UNSEC adopted resolution 1115, which "condemn[ed] the repeated refusal of the Iraqi authorities to allow access," and "demand[ed] that Iraq cooperate fully with the Special Commission." On October 23 of the same year, they did it again with resolution 1134. Then again on November 12 with resolution 1137.
On August 5, 1998, Iraq announced that they intended to suspend cooperation with UNSCOM. A month later, on September 9, UNSEC adopted resolution 1194, in which they "condemn[ed] the decision by Iraq," accused Iraq of "a totally unacceptable contravention of its obligations," and "demand[ed] that Iraq rescind its above-mentioned decision and cooperate fully with the Special Commission."
On October 31, Iraq formally ceased cooperation with UNSCOM. On November 5, UNSEC adopted resoltuion 1205, which "condemn[ed] the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation with the Special Commission," accused Iraq once more of "a flagrant violation of resolution 687," and "demand[ed] that Iraq rescind immediately and unconditionally the decision of 31 October 1998, as well as the decision of 5 August 1998."
On November 11, the UN withdrew its staff from Iraq. The US-led Allied Coalition began planning an operation to be called "Desert Fox." The mission of the operation would be to strike Iraqi targets from the air with the goal of reducing Iraq's ability to pursue weapons of mass destruction and to threaten its neighbors, and to demonstrate to Iraq the consequences of further defiance. On November 14, with B-52 bombers in the air and within 20 minutes of striking their targets, Saddam Hussein agreed to let inspectors back in. On December 8, UNSCOM executive director Richard Butler reported that Iraq was still not complying, and ordered his inspectors to leave Iraq.
On December 16, 1998, the Allied Coalition launched Operation Desert Fox. For four days, Coalition aircraft struck Iraqi military targets and targets related to Iraqi WMD programs. The strikes continued for four days, ending on the first day of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. On the last day of the strikes, Iraq's resolve was unshaken, and they declared that UNSCOM would never be allowed back into their country.
The correct course of action at this point would have been to follow up the limited air strikes with an all-out air campaign, followed immediately by invasion from all fronts and the forced disbanding of the Baath party and government. Unfortunately, the United States and the rest of the Allied Coalition lacked the political will to carry out such a massive military campaign at that time. The events of 9/11, however, served to galvanize American and Allied political will.
In 1999, however, that was not the case. On December 17, 1999, UNSEC adopted resolution 1284 which created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) to carry out UNSCOM's mandate, deciding that "UNMOVIC will undertake the responsibilities mandated to the Special Commission by the Council with regard to the verification of compliance by Iraq with its obligations under paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of resolution 687."
Finally, on September 16, 2002, after a series of failed negotiations, Iraq agreed to allow UNMOVIC inspectors into their country. Their goal, as stated in a letter from Iraqi Minister of Foreign Affairs Naji Sabri to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, was "to remove any doubts that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction." On October 1, 2002, Iraq and UNMOVIC/IAEA agreed on the terms for the return of the inspectors.
On November 8, 2002, UNSEC adopted resolution 1441, which declared that Iraq "has been and remains in material breach of its obligations," offered Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations," demanded that Iraq provide to UNMOVIC" a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes," declared that "false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq... shall constitute a further material breach," and, finally, stated "that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations." On November 13, 2002, Iraq agreed to accept the terms of resolution 1441, saying, "We hereby ask you to inform the Security Council that we are prepared to receive the inspectors within the assigned timetable." The letter of acceptance, from Iraqi Minister of Foreign Affairs Naji Sabri, was filled with paranoid ramblings of great length and creativity, accusing the United States of "the biggest and most wicked slander against Iraq," and stridently declaring that claims that Iraq has produced chemical and biological weapons were "fabrications" and "baseless." It's a fascinating read, and it's available on line here [foxnews.com].
On December 7, 2002, Iraq delivered a 12,000 page dossier on its weapons programs in which it declared that it has no weapons of masss destruction at all. On December 19, Dr. Hans Blix, head of UNMOVIC, reported that the declaration was incomplete, and left many questions unanswered. Since that time, it has been determined that the declaration was not merely incomplete, but inaccurate as well. On January 27, 2003, Dr. Blix said in his report to UNSEC, "Regrettably, the 12,000 page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that would eliminate the questions or reduce their number. Even Iraq?s letter sent in response to our recent discussions in Baghdad to the President of the Security Council on 24 January does not lead us to the resolution of these issues." He then went on to give some examples: Iraq has claimed that they only produced VX nerve agent on a pilot scale. UNMOVIC has information, including documents produced by Iraq, that contradicts this claim. Iraq declared that 19,500 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988. An Iraqi Air Force document uncovered by UNMOVIC indicates that the correct number is 13,000. Iraq has refused to reconcile this difference of 6,500 chemical weapons. The list goes on and on.
That brings us, more or less, up to the present date. For the past twelve years, Iraq has been repeatedly reminded that they are required, under the terms of the 1991 cease-fire agreement, to voluntarily and unilaterally disarm. They have refused to do so.
Acting under the mandate of resolution 678 of November 29, 1991, the US, as a member of UNSEC, has the legal authority to use "all necessary means" to force Iraq to comply with UN resolutions. The Allied Coalition attempted to do so in 1998 with limited strikes on military targets, but to no avail. Iraq continues, even in the face of further military action, to defy the Coalition and the Security Council. We have reached the point where we can no longer hold onto the hope that sanctions, strongly worded resolutions, or limited military strikes might convince Iraq to comply. We have reached the point where the only realistic hope for an end to this conflict lies in the destruction of the Baath government and the establishment of a democratic regime.
I hope this answers your question.
A New Clause... (Score:1, Interesting)
How many people would support a new clause in the GPL or another free software license prohibiting the code from being used in support of killing people?
Re:Shifting arguments and red herrings (Score:3, Interesting)
You're describing a conspiracy between Queda and Iraq that has *zero* evidence to support it. Who's chasing UFOs?
Your assumption that "we would have already invaded" doesn't fly.
By "doesn't fly" do you mean "established a precedent in Afghanistan, Yemen and the Philipine Islands?" Did we get UN approval to destroy Queda in those areas?
So don't tell me we need it in Iraq. If Powells pictures of "Queda" bases were really bases, we would have destroyed them already. It's what we do everywhere else.
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.
What problem? The problem is terrorists flying airliners into buildings. Iraq hasn't been part of that.
Put it this way - you can't blame Bush Jr. for not solving the problem without blaming Clinton at least as much.
And we can follow that logic right up to Bush Sr.
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."
Besides Turkey, the most westernized nation in the region is Iraq. There is a strong seperation of church and state. They do not have the religious prohibitions that you see in the Saudi states relating to many things western. You see western style clothing, food, and entertainment.
That it's run by a military dictatorship has no bearing whatsoever on whether it is a westernized culture.
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.
This is pure bullshit. History shows otherwise. He could have used them during Gulf War I, but didn't. No terrorist attacks have used Iraqi WMD, or Iraqi's, for that matter. He's used them to suppres insurgents in Iraq, and against Iran. Iran used them too. Thats it. "He could use them anywhere" is pure conspiracy theory.
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.
So show me the bodies. Show me the mountain of dead killed by terrorists using Iraqi WMD. You can't. I can show you the mountain of bodies killed with conventional explosives, though.
Want another 9/11?
Perhaps you could detail exactly what WMD and Iraqi's were involved in 9/11. The whole point is that destroying Iraq ISN'T GOING TO PREVENT ANOTHER 9/11. You don't have to be a damn genious to see that.
And since Oklahoma City, ammonium nitrate (and other oxidizers) are HIGHLY controlled.
I can walk into a feed store and buy ammonium nitrate fertilizer by the bag right now.
Claims of conspiracies and fabricated evidence?
The only claims of conspiracy are those that come from those who think Bin Laden is hiding out in Saddam's closet. This whole war is desperate dog wagging. If Queda were in Iraq, we'd be in Iraq right now. We've established that already. We did it in Afghanastan, Yemen, and we're about to do it in the PI. Those are the facts. The only conclusion we can make about our farting around with the UN regarding Iraq is that Queda isn't there.
But we knew that.
Re:open (Score:3, Interesting)
If the US Armed Forces were a group of well trained independent militias, then we would not have that problem at all. If all the money spent on the military were spent by militia members on whatever arms they desired, we would be awful difficult for anyone to invade.
We would also lose the ability to impose our will on other nations militarily. Oh... dear.
Perhaps you think the idea is hairbrained. It might be. But that's what the gun nuts often mean when they talk about the initial goal of the second amendment. It's not the *worst* idea I've ever heard.
Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War (Score:2, Interesting)
Destroying Stalin in 1945 was hardly an option - he was America's ally at that time, and no-one of any political persuasion thought there was any chance at all of fighting Russia just as WWII finally drew to an end.
After the war, no one really considered him our ally. We adopted a policy of containment as early as 1948 and we knew he was trouble in 1945, which is why we were in a rush to beat him to Berlin. It's true that no one considered a preemptive invasion of the USSR at the time, and it probably would have been a diplomatic nightmare, as you point out.
But we would have saved those 20 million from the Soviet police state, millions more from the gulags, tens of millions from poverty under Communism, and hundreds of thousands from the proxy wars in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, we would not have had to prop up all those terrible regimes, and the proliferation problems we face today would be significantly less.
So it's easy for me to say this in hindsight, but nevertheless, it would have been wise to crush Stalin in 1945. The Cold War was in fact the worst case of appeasement in the 20th century, worse than the appeasement of Hitler, just due to the existence of nuclear weapons.
Thanks for replying instead of modding me down. And thanks for keeping an open mind
Politics (Score:1, Interesting)
I understand that war invokes strong feelings on both sides. But please stop moderating down people whose views you disagree with. If you feel the need to point out some gross misrepresentation of facts or some illogical argument, then reply. Don't Mod.
Thank you.
Re:Check the license for mention of war (Score:2, Interesting)
I've always interpreted "Mending Wall" (the Robert Frost poem you're referring to) as completely the opposite.
Good fences make good neighbors because they bring neighbors together.
A little OT, but I know, but still relevant
Re:Shifting arguments and red herrings (Score:2, Interesting)
You remember Somolia, right?
That's the one where poppy Bush leaves a shit-load of problems for the incoming president.
The incoming president attempts to press onward with the agenda left by the outgoing administration.
Before he can do anything about it, the young president finds out that the "new world order" poppy Bush was trying to force on people of other nations (read 'nation building' -- a practice used by poppy Bush in a number of instances) has burned him.
After having his ass chewed upon for years because poppy Bush screwed up, you think that he could just wildly galavant over to Iraq, and do whatever he wanted? After he took the heat for the bad planning and lack of foresight that poppy Bush had, do you think he'd want to?
I'm sorry, but your logic baffles me.
Oh, and isn't it kind of funny how Rush and the good ol' boys forgot that poppy Bush was responsible for Somolia. Hell, they've been blaming Clinton for everything that's gone wrong for ten years now... Why stop now, right?
Yeah, it's Clinton's fault that Saddam Husein is still in power.
It's Clinton's fault that Bush outright ignored the Clinton administration's warnings about Al Qaeda.
It's Clinton's fault that US citizens are being locked up in military prisons.
It's Clinton's fault that more and more of the world sees the US as an oppressive nation.
The roots of terrorism are in opression. Somolia grew out of a feeling of oppression. Bush's oppression of others for short term political gain will cause the number of terrorists to multiply faster than Al Qaeda ever could have hoped for.
Bush has pissed away the good-will and benevolence of a world united against terrorism. I fear that we'll be paying for his stupidity for the rest of our lives.