LWN debates whether using GPL software on missiles counts as distribution | Hacker News Reader

LWN debates whether using GPL software on missiles counts as distribution

lwn.net

117 pointsaqrashik43 comments

First of all: This is a stupid question.

Second:

The solution is simple, copy a tarball of the source to CD and throw it inside the casing of the missile. Add rocket fuel to compensate for the added weight.

EDIT:

Third:

That was an intentionally stupid answer.

I think, on the other hand, that it's a very interesting thought experiment. While the realities of the original question are a bit absurd, the question does give one the opportunity to think about and discuss some interesting legal edge cases (government copyright infringement, and the implication thereof)

Further, it's fun to theorize about possible solutions to OSS licensing issues: Deliver the source via special courier (military strike team); deliver via the same means as the compiled code (a second missile); etc.

Related question: If a (non-weapon) device is shipped containing a GPL-derived program which includes a copy of the source, but destroys it on arrival, does that obey the license?

That's ridiculous!

Obviously, use a micro SD card, it's much smaller and easier to stick somewhere.

Come to think of it, would that actually be heat resistant enough to allow the receiver to be able to read it? Hmm, perhaps some more research is necessary after all.

Including a copy of the source with a missile reminds me of the "McDonnell-Douglas Warranty Card" joke that is probably nearly as old as the Internet itself:

http://www.cartalk.com/content/mcdonnell-douglas-warranty-ca...

Which reminded me of the picture of an American cluster bomb dispenser I took in Belgrade military museum: "Mishandling may void terms of the warranty" -- https://twitter.com/dchest/status/204289416779403264/photo/1....

Can't be that old, has to post-date the declassification of the F-117A in 1988. On the other hand, has to predate the subsuming of McDonell-Douglas into Boeing in 1997.

I was going to try to get more specific by figuring out when exactly Grumman (maker of the F-14) and General Dynamics (maker of the F-16) got subsumed into McDonnell-Douglas, but it turns out that they never did, they wound up in Lockheed. So whoever wrote this clearly didn't know all that much about fighter aircraft.

The joke has been re-written and re-told with new aircraft names many-many times - it dates back to at least Korea.

I'm sure they would be happy to quickly distribute the source code on replacement missile along with a bugfix.

"Thank you for your request for source code. We believe the product you received from us was defective. Please give me your GPS coordinates so we can send a replacement product, with source code, to you stat. While we believe this does not count as 'distribution' under the GPL and may indeed be fair use, we do stand by our products and are happy to replace them when they fail."

The drones the original article talks about aren't missles, they aren't even predators or global hawks. They are the target practice drones the navy shoots with their own missiles for air to air combat exercises.

The GPL only states you have to release the source to people you distribute the code to, not directly make it publicly available. If the missiles work well enough when "delivered", there will be no one left eligible to demand access to the source!

Assuming that they are not selling them to someone rather than firing them at someone, of course.

You have to supply the code used in products that you distribute - hence the whole Tivo issue.

So the argument is - have you distributed the missile to the firers or to the target?

That's what the AGPL sorts out. Is being hit by a missil a 'service'

One additional consideration; does being hit by a missile constitute unsolicited mailing?

This is sort of hilarious, but I'm pretty sure that firing a missile at someone doesn't count as giving them code. Its not your intent that they're able to use the missile for their own purposes, for example.

Your intent isn't important - it's the intent of the person licensing the software.

I publish my shark+laser beam integration library in the hope that other evil geniuses will use it and improve on it. Together we can produce an opensource shark+laser beam system that is more secure and reliable than the commercial offering. When you are an evil genius you have to worry about these things.

Yes, the internet is good at selecting pedantic people for extended discussions of absurdities. However, this doesn't have much significance for whether GPL-style licensing provisions are preferable in the regular world.

I think it was intended to be funny.

HN managed to generate 22 comments discussing a 6 line lighthearted hypothetical musing on LWN.

>pedantic people for extended discussions of absurdities.

And here we are!

I'm more amazed that even a semi-humorous topic gathered any significant quantity of upvotes, let alone enough to get frontpaged.

That said, this is the silliest I've been grinning today, so thanks all :)

RMS should think about this form of delivery in GPLv4. j/k

I personally wouldn't mind the GPL being revised to disallow weapons of war using the code.

First, do you really think people creating weapons of war would bother obeying the GPL?

And secondly, that would result in the GPL no longer being complaint with the Open Source Definition[1], which does not allow "field of endeavour" restrictions. Whether or not the FSF cares about that point is questionable (I doubt they care much) but it could make life more difficult for F/OSS developers in general.

[1]: http://oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/perens.html

The FSF have what seems like a well-considered position on such things: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/hessla.html

True, and just to be clear, when I said "I doubt they care very much" I meant "I doubt they care very much about not being compliant with the OSD." It does, of course, make sense that they make have a position that overlaps with a point from the OSD, for their own reasons.

I do suppose it would be better to just be able to force them to obey the GPL (and distribute their code), than disallow them to use it.

There are sometimes operational difficulties in 'forcing' the owner of a nuclear armed carrier battlefleet to obey anything.

It's even worse than trying to force a teenager to tidy their room!

I have to agree with the general principle of this. Hanging on my sister's kitchen wall is a tea-towel printed with a record of a delightful conversation between US and Canadian forces. They each insist the other should divert course. The US forces describe what they are - a carrier group, and again insist that the Canadian forces divert course. The Canadian forces simply reply, "This is a lighthouse." ;)

With all that said, I don't think it applies to licenses at all. Licenses are paperwork. Do I need to say more?

It isn't about the armed forces themselves, as they rarely make their own arms. Most weapons companies are publicly traded corporations.

First, do you really think people creating weapons of war would bother obeying the GPL?

Sure, most weapons of war are created by companies which act within the law in order to do so.

A broader question is: I don't think you can revise the GPL, can you? If you change the GPL it's no longer the GPL referred to by the GPL when the GPL says that anything produced with the GPL must be licensed under the GPL, thus all existing GPL software will still be under the old GPL not the new GPL.

You'd have to start from scratch with a new licence and develop a new codebase.

The FSF publishes new revisions (see: GPLv3). Some projects are released strictly under GPLv2 (e.g. Linux), but it's more usual to release software under "... or, at your option, any later version published by the Free Software Foundation".

That would go directly against freedom zero, and criteria 6

Some weapons of war require custom code, but for those systems that can use COTS software, you would rather see them use Windows and possibly other commercial software, rather than linux/*bsd and their F/OSS ecosystems?

I don't think that would accomplish much except hurt the DOD and hurt open source software that various parts of the DOD contribute to.

But weapons used for defence are still cool, right?

That has come up a few times and there is a non-military clause for creative commons. IIRC it was in the code for a digital radio system.

But even assuming the bad guys would abide by it - it gets tricky:

Does the police count? What about SWAT teams, what about the FBA, the CIA?

Is the coastguard part of the Navy in your country? Does that make SAR "military"? Could they use it only on rescue missions but not on law enforcement?

It certainly sounds at least like export to me. Are they therefore illegally exporting munitions and crypto?

I strongly suspect that the US munition export law will have a section saying "This doesn't apply to the US military" or some such.

I'm picturing somewhere in the DoD there is an ordnance disposal form with a checkbox saying - "dropped on enemy"

Even if it is, the first sale doctrine would likely apply and so it would not require the permission of the copyright owner.

Whether this is the case or not depends on whether or not the Navy is making copies, or just passing along copies they received from a contractor.

Ha! Everybody knows that laws for mortals don't apply to the defense industry.

It's time to begin distributing copyrighted content on missiles.

The government has the power of eminent domain, so they can just appropriate the property for it's market value. ($0)

Open source is great; can't create something? Bitch about licensing!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com