How does that work? It's going to be impossible to draw the line.

With that clause you clearly couldn't put the software into the guidance computer on a warhead or the missile launch system itself. But what about a system on the weapons launching platform that isn't a weapon. Is the computer running the engines on a navy cargo ship 'used for the purposes of warfare'? What if the system controlled by the software is completely incidental, or defensive in nature? The fire control system saves lives, is that 'for the purposes of warfare'?

And what about the computers used to design weapons? Is an engineer working on a weapon using the software 'for the purposes of warfare'?

And what about the accountant at the company that makes weapons, is he using the software for the purposes of warfare even if he doesn't know anything about the weapons?

Is the machine shop that gets 1% of its business from selling parts that end up in weapons using the software for the purposes of warfare?

It's impossible to make that distinction in any meaningful way.

That's all fluff. It's pretty black and white if you engage the brain:

If a device is intended to directly harm someone intentionally, then there should be a restrictive clause.

Computers that design weapons aren't specifically used to design weapons.

Weapons are specifically designed to kill people so therefore the clause should apply.

Should machines that are used to create weapons part of that clause? Is a scout drone a weapon? Is the control software for that drone a weapon? What if it's a scout drone? What if this scout drone is used for reconnaissance by the coast guard to find criminals? What if it's used to find ships in peril and provide fast assistance? There are some black and white extremes, but there's also a lot of grey in between. I'd rather prefer my license to stay out of that mess. The GPL stipulates that apart from the restrictions in the GPL, no further restrictions can be applied to a software. But you're certainly free to license your code under a "no-weapons" clause, I just don't think that the GPL is the right place to do that.

Machines that create weapons are not usually designed specifically to make weapons.

A scout drone is a weapon if it's used by the military. I made this point here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4177285

There is no grey area.

I agree about the GPL at the basic point, but there should be a no warfare version.

I thought you said you worked in the industry? If you really did, then you'd know that more and more civilian grade technology is being used by military contractors to build military solutions. For this reason, such a clause would get complicated really fast:

- Is it ok to license audrino code under this license? (yes)

- Is it ok to combine other components with audrino under this license? (yes, for non-weapons)

- Can audrinos be used to build a drone? (yes)

- Can this drone be purchased by the government and it's contractors (yes)

- Can the military use the drones? (yes as long as it doesn't "kill or cause harm")

- Can this drone be used for reconnaissance? (yes as long as it doesn't "kill or cause harm")

ok, so now the military is using these drones all over the place. Pictures are taken, stored in databases, and distributed throughout the military. Eventually, some of those pictures are used to strategically bomb an insurgent encampment. Who violated the license?

Even better, what it were Google who purchased the drones and Google maps was instead used for the bombing strategy. Who's at fault now?

I did work in the industry before I developed some sense.

You distinctly miss the point there. Military hardware is controlled heavily. No commercial entities use their data. That chain if events doesn't waist and never will.

There is a wall between the two sides that is rarely crossed.

Which is entirely not true. The fire scout drone for example is a military development based on the Schweizer 330 civilian heli. The S-434 is partially based on changes developed for the Fire Scout drone. The Bell Eagle Eye drone was initially conceived for the military but at a later stage, plans were made to make it a coast guard drone. Many helicopters have two versions, a civilian and a military version, for example the Bo-105 series which was extensively used by the german army but also formed the backbone of the german air ambulance network from the 1970s until the last one was replace in 2007. Which one of those is "military hardware"?

Most of technology initially conceived for military purposes was at some point repurposed for civilian use (Think: That packet-based network nowadays called 'The Internet')

I am also against warfare but if Linux (or OSS in general) helps to enhance the security and realiability of weapons so that they don't kill civil people accidently then it's ok. It's not Linux or GPL what makes things good or bad - it's the people who use it.

If you wan't GPL to be non-violent then you also have to forbid GPL usage in embedded systems, because air planes, cars etc. also can kill people.

And don't forget that Linux users normally pay back to the community. Look at SE-Linux, or SE-Android, for example.

A drone is designed for un-manned flight, nothing more or less. Sure you can strap weapons to it and use it to make it easier to kill people, but you can do the same with a car. But you can also strap cameras and sensors to a drone and use them to do neat science (like these people: http://espo.nasa.gov/missions/hs3/)

That's splitting hairs.

A military drone is either intended to:

1. Blow people up or shoot them.

2. Find out who to blow up or shoot.

People don't drive cars around like that other than the military (therefore point demonstrated) and mad max...

UAVs are a tool just like any other: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle#Uses

Some of them are used for war, but not all. I'm assuming the companies that make "good" drones also make military drones.

Please don't misunderstand me: Weapons are bad. But if we can't avoid them then it is better to use the best option to make bad things a little better.

That's a fair point. I'll give you that.

I don't know, somehow I would feel better being shot to death by flying drones running Linux instead of Windows. After years of having to suffer with Outlook, Exchange, Sharepoint and Internet Explorer it would really just feel like the end of a long torturous assault on my existence by Microsoft.

Sharepoint yes. The other products are ok :)

There was an actual attempt to add a "No military use" clause to the GPL (effectively making it a different license) a few years ago:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1683750/posts

I increacingly question the notion that there are any just wars, but I don't really see how such a clause is practical or enforceable.

Even if it were practical and enforceable at keeping "evil" from co-opting code contributed by "good," it would also reduce opportunities for "good" to co-opt code contributed by "evil."

I'll point out that the technology we are using to have this discussion was underwritten by the military. The military dumped a lot of money into integrated circuits before commercial applications could fund Moore's Law, and the Internet was also the outcome of a military project. You can argue that there should be other means to fund such advancements, and I'd agree, but this is where we are now.

Thank you for some sensible discussion.

I think you issue some good counterpoints to my original point which I can't argue with.

It is a win for Linux, just may not be for humanity.. But A lot of the software wouldn't be created for offensive weapons and they are going to still be made whether they be run under linux or some other OS.

This is contrary to certain definitions of freedom. For example, Debian's requirements[1] are that "The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor".

As others have said "warfare" and "suffering" are too hard to define anyway.

[1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines

I think it's pretty clear. The definitions have been made ambiguous by the permanent state of military action across the world. We're desensitised to it.

OT but prompted by the above: What exactly is the threshold on this site nowadays to be able to downvote comments?

Yes, we should all just hold hands, sing kumbaya, and subsist on the gum drops and jelly beans that rain from the sky.