Fields of Endeavor (was Re: [Fwd: Intent to package: pm3])
bruce@perens.com wrote:
> From: David Starner <dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org>
> > Yes, it would be non-free. Theft is a field of endevor. Note that Berkeley
> > has a program (or so I've heard) that still prohibits South African police
> > from using it, because of their past history, and nobody has changed the
> > license.
>
> Criminal laws against theft and murder already exist, so there's no reason for
> your license to deal with these activities.
Ah, but the question pertained to ostensibly /de jure/ legal activities, because
they are acts committed by governments themselves. Remember that the Holocaust
was completely "legal" in Germany (however, I do not intend a /reductio ad
Hitlerum/ here).
Is a license DFSG-non-free if it has restrictions against certain uses to which
the author is deeply morally opposed, and where such uses are clearly injurious
to person or property (and not merely a "religious" objection on the part of the
licensor)? Are all activities legitimate "fields of endeavor"?
To take a somewhat more concrete example: suppose I write a program which can be
used to design explosive devices. Such devices have many appropriate uses, in
mining, construction, and so forth. Perhaps it is unnecessary that I explicitly
restrict use by terrorists, since terrorism is illegal. (However, if I did so
anyhow, would that make my license DFSG-non-free?) On the other hand, perhaps I
do not wish for my software to be used by certain governments for "military"
purposes - which are by definition "legal", yet just as clearly destructive.
Must an author permit such military use for a license to be DFSG-free?
Reply to: