While weapons can indeed be used for evil things,what about the parts where weapons actually save lives? For example when used to defend medicinal camps that provide help for Ebola (or any other dangerous disease) infected people against marauders, or hen the UNO uses them to secure convoys delivering food and medicine to those that need them in war zones (or other zones were safety can not be guaranteed by the state, for example after a natural disaster)? Or when the weapons system of a warship is used to shoot down missiles that are aimed at civilians?
Wouldn't denying to use open source software for these purposes being in itself evil?

The people that wish you harm are not going to be concerned with licensing restrictions. Why put yourself at a disadvantage? There's an implication that the people in charge of deploying these systems cannot be trusted not to use them without a really... really good reason. The final word is from someone that is elected, so if there is misuse, the problem is with the people that elected them, not the software license (IMO).

This whole topic seems very distasteful, hard to comment on. Maybe it's a topic that should be banned, or maybe not, all I can say is that it has been very difficult to put any thoughts down on this topic. And yet, it's a challenge. Maybe some things should not be ignored and need to be explored, even on a site that is dedicated to spreading Linux happiness.

Why? If people on a computer users' forum are not allowed to discuss what uses a software licence should and should not allow, what would they be allowed to discuss? Licensing is very on-topic. If topics that cannot have a consensus of opinion are banned, then almost no topic would be allowed.

I agree. Hopefully he was just joking

The basic idea is one I ponder about.
I think the world is sick of killing and I especially think the world is sick to death of weaselly worded excuses for moral ambiguity. When are we going to see a movement like the Quakers - an absolute commitment to pacifism, even at personal cost? When are people going to stand up and say "no more"?

Perhaps if a person gets more stressed out over proprietary ware in their OS than they do with people using the code base to make killing cheaper and more reliable, that person has lost their way and needs to spend some time rooting about in the cellar of their soul.

Argument about weapon system uses of Linux? What about defense system? What about financial system? Banking system? What if you disagree with big retail and they happen to choose Linux as their choice OS? You don't think Linux isn't wonderfully set up for people to create very prolific network attacks, and spy attempts for say even commercial intentions?

I'm sure you have seen threads by some ESL person saying "Please sirs tell me how to create app which will FTP a file to twenty thousand sites and then FTP it from each of those sites to each other. Please I need to test network or boss will shoot me. Please help!!"

So you find it unacceptable, even offensive. And as TenTenths says, "Where do you stop?" Do you never use VxWorks? Or how about QNX? Or things like Real-Time DDS?

And has it occurred to you that the same reliability issues which are required by the military are similarly required by the FDA, FAA, financial systems, power grid, DOT, and so forth? I mean, you want those aircraft systems to work don't you?

Similar technology and OS structure are being used in the structure of organized systems for infrastructure, but yet this primary sticking point about the use of Linux in weapons?

They're gonna use "something" in the weapons.

I'm HOPING that they WAY customize Linux a great deal and expect that it's way less open source by the time they actually deploy with it. Hate to think that because a child process has a core dump that something which absolutely has to happen now can't because of an OS glitch.

Well, no. I'll try to keep the reasons short so as not to detract from the thread.
It wasn't the licensing topic that was the problem for me, it was having to discuss real death and killing. I still am not sure if 'discouraged' would have been more appropriate than 'ban', or even if this is a case where, if you are uncomfortable with the discussion, you should just stay out of it. In the light of morning though, it does seem unreasonable to suggest banning a discussion that you are uncomfortable with.

Why? It should be free to discuss just like anything else.
Ironic really

Weapons are machines. To say that a one machine is bad or ugly or another not is the height of being blind the the truth of the world.

Really I want to say grow up but don't want to be a bully.

Weapons are machines. To say that a one machine is bad or ugly or another not is the height of being blind the the truth of the world.

So there's no difference between a cruise missile and a kidney dialysis machine?
And this is supposed to be a serious point?

It would be if the two machines use the same components. For example; when Iraq was under an embargo, the Iraqis were not allowed to import pencils, because the part of a pencil that leaves a mark is graphite. Graphite was not allowed by the terms of the embargo, because graphite is used in the production of missile warheads. Of course, it was ludicrous to ban pencils to prevent them from being turned into missiles, but this story serves a purpose. This is not a hypothetical example, but a real example of how it can be difficult to single out uses of a multi-use product. Satellites have computers that are used to transmit communication signals, take photographs of the world, gather climate data, --- and spy on people. Soon they will also be weapon platforms. How can an open source licence allow the first three functions, but prevent the last two? The only way to ensure spying and weapon uses are prevented would be to ban open source software from all satellites. Assuming, of course, such a ban could be enforced.

How can an open source licence allow the first three functions, but prevent the last two?

The same way it allows some things and prohibits others now - by writing it down in a series of carefully constructed sentences, designed to convey meaning.
Many people ignore the various licences we have now, is anyone suggesting we not bother with licences? Or that we abandon Open Source altogether?

Besides, as any observation of the real world will show - the law that says "don't kill people" does not stop killing, it merely allows for some sort of legal redress to be available for when someone does, so expecting a software licence to stop anything is somewhat unrealistic in the first place.

But then again the question remains: What if a satellite that is used as a weapons platform goes into action for humanitarian means, for example, as in my previous post, to shoot down missiles aimed at civilian targets? Shouldn't we allow that? How would you word that in a license?

Maybe "Don't be evil" ...

It cannot be done. Such a restriction could only ban all weapons. I believe a modified version of your example would be even better.

A communication satellite armed with weapons to defend itself against attacks from offensive satellites.
As noble as the desire is to ban open source software from weapons is, in this example, the beneficial and harmless satellite would not be allowed to use open source software, because the software would also operated the weapons.

Again, the idea is from the heart and sounds good, but in the real world things are not as black-and-white as; weapons bad, no weapons good. The issue is clouded by a lot of grey.