I keep hearing that line whenever someone is on the retreat and doesn't want to admit it. Why shrink the importance now?

You obviously have good if somewhat naïve intentions, but why insult someone who took the time to explain why the situation is as it is?

This thread should be considered solved. People who use this software in weapon systems are permitted to do so. However, if they change and distribute this code, they must also distribute the source.
I don't know if a license that restricts usage in weapon systems exists anywhere and whether it should exist could be debated forever.

If you disagree with the GPL license however, you are totally free to write your own license, write your own kernel and various programs needed for it.
But you cannot take existing GPL software and restrict it in this manner.

You could of course, take BSD code and hide it away in a anti weapon system clause. Those guys really don't care what you do with their code. You just can't claim you wrote what they wrote.

Probably. And if a software developer makes that determination as it is their right. There are a lot of licenses you and I may disagree with
but that doesn't necessarily mean they shouldn't exist. Some licenses clearly are unreasonable and probably shouldn't exist
but such a clause isn't that unreasonable compared to some horrible licenses out there.

If the word is "restricts" and not "prohibits", then iTunes counts.

Yes, HESSLA.

No, it's bolshevism and states will ignore it anyway.

Freedom with exceptions isn't freedom. We have that in Sweden. We have "free speech" with the exception of hate speech. Artists have been put in jail for creating "hateful" art (Dan Park). They did the same thing in East Germany: enforced freedom. Students who "abused" their freedom were taken to the Soviet Union for a show trial and execution.

That's the only thing I like about the USA, by the way. You have real, actual freedom of speech. It's very rare in the world. We don't have it anywhere in Europe, we only have enforced Soviet-style freedom.

Either it's totally free or it may as well be proprietary. No Stallman ideology about forcing people to share (copyleft clauses) and no HESSLA Marxism.

Freedom in the EUSSR

There is no such thing as absolute freedom. It does not and probably can not exist.

It isn't truly unrestricted speech even if people try to claim it is. It's better than most countries in that regard but not as drastic as it might seem

Whats the harm in including an ethics clause in the license? Even if its ignored and unenforceable it seems to me a good idea. Just as a statement of ethical purpose and standards. Something along the lines of "This software may not be used in systems or hardware that cause direct physical harm to human beings."

Yeah, the problem is to some people their definition of freedom means that they're fully entitled to do things very "off" or "potentially dangerous" like stand in the middle of a crowd discharging a firearm into the air, merely because there's no law which says you cannot do that. So there may some immediate consequences, potentially resulting in a scene and arrest, subsequent court meetings conclude that they did not technically violate a law, so it gets all kinds of airtime, and then (at least in the US) there'll be all kinds of proactive groups trying to "fight" over new laws to disallow that very particular action, as well as proponents making a huge fight to retain their freedom of speech.

The other one would be someone entering a public area and spouting obscenities loudly, which actually is illegal in general, but I'm sure is not in certain areas. And the person "looks" for that particular situation, but also with maximum effect so they can stand there and say "OK so I shocked a bunch of people, little children, and grandparents ... I didn't break the law ..."

I'm not saying we all should be conformists, but after all, we do have "a society" and some of the rules are things like not killing, not stealing, generally behaving with civility. The issues are that some persons' definitions of civility are vastly different. That's a delicate topic, of course. And then some persons' try to re-define civility, due to some agenda of their own, or "just because" and IMHO that's like as bad as when my kid said a phrase "sounding" like a swear word, but he didn't swear. Guess what? He got punished, by me and the school. That wasn't about "conform" it was some 11 year old trying to shock because he thought it was cool.

I see no harm in that idea at all. Actually sounds like a good idea; however I'd recommend that this stance be brought to the forefront as people engage in compiling, or using said software, because if that type of statement is not very much highlighted, people will ignore it and then becomes the ethical issue of enforcement.

Certainly it will be ignored, but at least it would provide a basis for humanitarian and political organizations to wage legal protest against unethical governments. There are people who take up such causes with zeal and dedication and it would be another tool in their arsenal. Not including such a clause helps nothing and no one, including such a clause might actually end up making the world a better place even marginally. If including such a clause saves one life is it worth it?

Uhm, what do you think a software license is, if not a set of exceptions for what you're free to do with the software? Even the MIT license prohibits you from distributing the software without a copy of the license itself.

I hate statements like these.

They do nothing to actually answer the question, but you look heartless if you say no.

The possibility that it could save a life somewhere somehow does not make [controversial idea here] valid.

The harm is that such a clause in a license can never be stated in a non-ambiguous way. See your sentence above: Does a car manufacturer gets the license revoked when one of the cars harms people in an accident? What about medicinal equipment that does good with doing harm, for example when applying radiation to a cancer patient?

If you say so. I guess it depends on your definition of valid. If your criteria for valid includes notions of ethics and addressing the problem of human suffering, then its valid. What exactly is your definition of valid in your statement?

How about expressing it this way then; If it does no harm (what ever your criteria for harm might be) otherwise and saves one life, is it worth it?

Including a clause prohibiting opensource software from being used in weapons systems would provide one more foothold for human rights and political organizations to better the human condition on the planet. What exactly is the problem with that?

Im not sure what the phrase "does good with doing harm" means here. In any treatment one considers the net good and i know your next argument will likely be some variation of "well we have to kill these people to make the world a better place" that argument has been used by every villain in history and oss has a chance to elevate itself above that kind of evil with a simple humanitarian clause.

As far as overcoming ambiguity, i think the language is up to it. Contracts happen everyday.
As an off the cuff example: The use of this software in weapon systems or hardware, when such use causes direct physical or psychological harm to any human being, is explicitly prohibited.
This prohibition includes use to acheive military or political objectives by national military forces and domestic police as well as international police and military organizations.

See that wasnt so hard was it?

If we need an expert, im sure an organization like amnesty international would be happy to help with the verbiage.

So you can't use it in a computer system used to generate content which would make military dictators feel bad about themselves?
That would mean Amnesty International and various Human rights groups would be prohibited from using software released under that licence to promote their political agenda's.