mindprod.com now 100% free

[Roedy Green]

I have converted the last of the shareware over to freeware on
mindprod.com. It all comes with well-commented source.

I still cling to the non-military use only clause. I can't bear the
thought of giving permission for my work to be used to murder, torture
and maim. It is bad enough knowing the military uses it anyway.

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

I have converted the last of the shareware over to freeware on
mindprod.com. It all comes with well-commented source.

I still cling to the non-military use only clause. I can't bear the
thought of giving permission for my work to be used to murder, torture
and maim. It is bad enough knowing the military uses it anyway.

Then it is not open source according to OSI's OSD.

http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php

item #6.

Arne

 

[Roedy Green]

Then it is not open source according to OSI's OSD.

The word open has so many connotations:

1. no cost
2. get to peak at source.
3. are allowed to reuse and modify source.
4. there are no restrictions of any kind on what you do with the
source, even illegal or extremely vile purposes.

Perhaps we need very specific words for the various properties.
I guess the various licences at least encapsulate some of the common
combinations.

I find it odd so many people are willing to work FOR child
prostitution rings by giving them their software without restriction,
ditto the military.

That attitude reminds me of the Nazis who did the plumbing at the
death camps.

 

[Andrew Thompson]

On Mar 12, 2:40 pm, Roedy Green <[email protected]>
wrote:
..

I find it odd so many people are willing to work FOR
... the military.

<http://groups.google.com.au/group/comp.lang.java.programmer/msg/
41359efd8ebefb51>

Roedy..
"I got to program a computer used to control nuclear submarines
without
having to sell my soul by joining the navy or creating products to
kill."

So that was a nuclear *pleasure* submarine, was it?
Perhaps a navy deep sea submersible to study cetacean
feeding habits?

It seems if the sub was controlled by the navy,
you may not have *sold* your soul, but you did
*rent it out*..

On a more relevant note. I decided long ago
that I could not afford to examine such source.
If by purpose or accident any part of it found
its way into my codebase - I would not want my
code to become encumbered by other people's
restrictions.

Not that I am any fan of war, but I just don't
see software licensing bringing about an end
to it, and if I were somehow projected into a
warzone, I would use any code within reach that
might help me or mine survive.

Of course, I will not pretend that my failure
to use your code will make so much as one iota's
difference to the planet in general, but just
thought you should know there was one more 'vote'
against applying restrictions to source.

Having had my say - I do think your moves towards
open(er) source and freeware is admirable.

 

[Roedy Green]

It seems if the sub was controlled by the navy,
you may not have *sold* your soul, but you did
*rent it out*..

no. My work was 100% for peaceful purposes. I was able to salvage evil
and turn it into good.

Had is used my code for guiding a submarine ,then I would have sold my
soul. I was horrified one of my coworkers expressed a desire to work
on such a project. He was quite mild mannered. To him it was just a
big toy.

..

 

[Joshua Cranmer]

4. there are no restrictions of any kind on what you do with the
source, even illegal or extremely vile purposes.

I don't think that's much of an issue here. Look at like this: should a
doctor set someone's finger bones, knowing that if they were perfectly
healed, that person could strangle someone to death? I don't think you
could be held liable if your code was used for illegal purposes so long
as that code was not intended to be used as such.

I find it odd so many people are willing to work FOR child
prostitution rings by giving them their software without restriction,
ditto the military.

With respect to the military, people find it a good place to work
because it tends to be at the cutting edge of technology. You can find
plenty of stuff to work on that doesn't involve weapons systems or the
like. For example, I interned last summer at the Naval Research
Laboratory (a part of the U.S. Navy). What was I working on? A system to
discover biological protein signaling networks. That won't be put to use
killing people, so I see no objections to that.

As you yourself point out, there are ways you can work on "100% peaceful
purposes" even within the military.

 

[Kenneth P. Turvey]

With respect to the military, people find it a good place to work
because it tends to be at the cutting edge of technology. You can find
plenty of stuff to work on that doesn't involve weapons systems or the
like. For example, I interned last summer at the Naval Research
Laboratory (a part of the U.S. Navy). What was I working on? A system to
discover biological protein signaling networks. That won't be put to use
killing people, so I see no objections to that.

As you yourself point out, there are ways you can work on "100% peaceful
purposes" even within the military.

I've been reading this thread for a while and I just wanted to voice
another point of view without starting a flame war. I respect the
intention of Rody (sp?) to avoid his code being used to maim and kill, but
I, for one, don't really find assisting the military (or for that matter
other countries militaries) to be morally objectionable.

Sometimes violence is necessary to prevent even greater human tragedies.
Civil disobedience and peaceful protest are great, but these methods simply
won't stop every despot with murder and mayhem on his mind. So the
development of good weapons may actually make the world a safer and more
secure place for us all to live in.

I know that many people have differing opinions on this matter, but
I thought it important to point out that the morality of working with,
for, or for the benefit of, the military isn't as clear cut as this thread
would lead one to believe.

I personally would have no problem with my software being used in most
weapons. I might get a real kick out of it.

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

The word open has so many connotations:

1. no cost
2. get to peak at source.
3. are allowed to reuse and modify source.
4. there are no restrictions of any kind on what you do with the
source, even illegal or extremely vile purposes.

The term open source has been give a precise definition
in the "Open Source Definition" by the "Open Source Initiative".

To avoid confusion it makes sense to use that definition.

Arne

 

[Roedy Green]

I don't think that's much of an issue here. Look at like this: should a
doctor set someone's finger bones, knowing that if they were perfectly
healed, that person could strangle someone to death? I don't think you
could be held liable if your code was used for illegal purposes so long
as that code was not intended to be used as such.

You are CREATING a tool. It is similar to manufacturing land mines, or
more closely explosives. You bear responsibility for what happens to
any explosives you manufacture. It is your job to make sure they are
not used for terrorism.

Consider the effort that goes into killing an Iraqi child. Some of it
is peeling potatoes, some manufacturing transport, some manufacturing
weapons, some making political decisions. It requires ALL of it for
the kid to be killed. If you contributed toward that end, you share in
the guilt.

The usually human response is for EVERYONE involved to shirk his
responsibility on someone else. NOBODY takes responsibility, yet ALL
were necessary.

Another excuse is that if I did not do the wicked thing, somebody else
would. The more people refuse, the more difficult and costly it is
for the evil doers to recruit help. If everyone took responsibility
for the personal consequences of their actions, leaders could never
recruit for wrongdoing.

My other answer is you are not responsible primarily for your own
actions. Whether other people do evil or not should have nothing to
do with whether you choose to. Personal responsibility in an evil
world is a profoundly Christian value. I find it odd it is so often
rejected in a nominally Christian country.

 

[Roedy Green]

Sometimes violence is necessary to prevent even greater human tragedies.
Civil disobedience and peaceful protest are great, but these methods simply
won't stop every despot with murder and mayhem on his mind. So the
development of good weapons may actually make the world a safer and more
secure place for us all to live in.

But that has not happened for 60 years. Today the militaries are
being used almost exclusively for illegal aggressive war.

Just as Quakers are permitted to refrain from military activity, I
feel I should too.

 

[Roedy Green]

I think this is the most important feature of open software. It means
you can learn from code. You can just code quality. You can track
bugs. You have a out should the project stop being supported.

 

[Andrew Thompson]

On Mar 13, 4:06 pm, Roedy Green <[email protected]>
wrote:
...

Consider the effort that goes into killing an Iraqi child.  Some of it
is peeling potatoes, some manufacturing transport, some manufacturing
weapons, some making political decisions.  It requires ALL of it for
the kid to be killed. If you contributed toward that end, you share in
the guilt.

You've convinced me - I will *never* peel potatoes
again - it's baked 'taters in the jacket, from here
on in. I promise. ;-)

However it does remind me of a thought I had when
you maintained the programming for a nuclear sub
was '100% peaceful'.

Huh?! This 'nuclear sub' does carry weapons, right?
Torpedoes that can sink ships, maybe mines, quite
possibly ICBMs?

I cannot think of any uses of nuclear subs by
navies that do *not* involve carrying weapons
that might (one way or another) bring harm to
(what was it?) that child in Iraq.

If so, then I would consider any program ranging
from one that tracks food stocks in the galley
(such as, for instance, *potatoes* and what state
of peeled'ness they are in) right down to a trivial
breakout game to keep the crew amused while off-duty,
to be *contributing* (at least in some small way)
to the war machine you so despise.

I am specifically curious about two things.

Did this sub carry *any* form of weapons? Are you
able*/willing to tell us what the software was?

* Secrecy agreements notwithstanding.

 

[Kenneth P. Turvey]

But that has not happened for 60 years. Today the militaries are
being used almost exclusively for illegal aggressive war.

This could be a long debate, but I would argue that these weapons have
made our lives safer and more secure. I don't think that the answer is as
clear cut as you make it out to be. It is relatively easy to measure the
death toll, but impossible to measure the number of lives saved by the
deterrence these weapons provide.

Just as Quakers are permitted to refrain from military activity, I
feel I should too.

I have no problem with your placing restrictions on the software you
write. It is your work; you can decide who benefits from it.

 

[Roedy Green]

This could be a long debate, but I would argue that these weapons have
made our lives safer and more secure.

The Iraq and Afghan wars have made you LESS secure.

Even if they didn't you still have no business killing innocent kids
to give you the warm fuzzies.

 

[Roedy Green]

You've convinced me - I will *never* peel potatoes
again - it's baked 'taters in the jacket, from here
on in. I promise. ;-)

There was a military man addressing on the CPAC channel selling the
Canadian military's plan to extend the Afghan war for 3 more years. He
told joke after joke, and flirted in the cutesy manner of Herman Noone
of Herman's Hermits.

However, I felt discussing sacrificing children for political games
and sadistic lusts is not an amusing subject. I was revolted and
enraged.

I feel similarly, but less intensely about what you just did.

 

[Kenneth P. Turvey]

The Iraq and Afghan wars have made you LESS secure.

The Iraqi war has made us less secure, to be sure, but the Afghan war
probably has helped our security.

This of course doesn't have anything to do with the assertion you made
earlier. You asserted that weapons and weapon systems have made us less
safe and less secure. Not every war is just and not every killing is
just, but it doesn't follow that the weapons and weapon systems we produce
make us less secure.

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

I think this is the most important feature of open software. It means
you can learn from code. You can just code quality. You can track
bugs. You have a out should the project stop being supported.

Most open source people emphasize the "passing rights on"
aspect. Not only does the author give the first level
of users some rights. The first level of users can
pass the same rights on to a second level of users. And
so on.

Arne

 

[Andrew Thompson]

Most open source people emphasize the "passing rights on"
aspect. Not only does the author give the first level
of users some rights. The first level of users can
pass the same rights on to a second level of users. And
so on.

OK - not that I am proposing that Roedy should
change the term, or that we expect he will, but
out of curiousity, what would you call code that
is openly available for examination, but has
conditions of usage?

Is there a common term for that?

 

[Kenneth P. Turvey]

OK - not that I am proposing that Roedy should
change the term, or that we expect he will, but
out of curiousity, what would you call code that
is openly available for examination, but has
conditions of usage?

There can't be a term for every possible license. I would just call
Roedy's code free, or free for non-military applications, if you want to
be pedantic.

 

[Andrew Thompson]

Then it is not open source ..

It is also not a 'pineapple'.

But then, since Roedy described it as
'well-commented source', that hardly seems
relevant.

I feel like I've been had for ever considering
whether the mindprod.com source fits the OSI
OSD. My apologies for wasting the bandwidth.

(Thanks to Kenneth for his latest considered
response to that sub-thread - you made some
good points.)