Quote: Original post by Gil Grissom

Quote: Original post by Promit
Maybe more realistic and worrisome to suggest it gets around to, say, North Korea.

How would the source code for american missiles be useful to North Korea who doesn't have american missiles?

It is more about defending against than using. If I know exactly how a fighter jet's targeting system works, I will be in a better position to be able to evade it than if I don't know exactly how it works.

Quote: Original post by Sander

Quote: The GPL is the political agenda.

Not according to many people that use the GPL.

Quote: Many people might use it out of ignorance

And many people use it because it does exactly what they want. Like me.

Full agree.

I don't see why the license as that, a license should be worse or better than MIT+Co., with respect to what future I want to give to my code.

If I want to give the next programmer freedom, than I choose MIT+Co, who can then make it unfree or use it for good wealth. If I want a guarantee that my code remains "free" beyond the next-best programmer (to fellows or customers of that programmer), then the GPL or another license with similar clauses is my choice. The GPL has the advantage that it has been proven at court many times.

I don't care much about some snippets that I release, but if I hack my hands off to get a multiple 10,000 or 100,000 lines of code project released, where I put all my energy and time into (which I could also have used to have fun with my gf or to do non-programming volunteer work for public good), then I don't want any "neighbour mudda fucka" (sic) to rip it off, integrate, add value, and finally laugh at me. I don't want to work my ass off to help someone else get richer, while making no profit for myself or for the community; if at all, then my unpaid work shall help some someone, maybe at having fun, increasing peoples wealth, or whatever. And that license is my proven backup in law with that.

If someone wants my GPL code for incompatible stuff: Either he pays me for a commercial license, or he pays me even more for the rights on the code, or he uses it as and maybe (but not necessarily) requests commercial support, or he must look for an alternative. Alternatively, he might kick me an email in which he states a good reason (like collecting money for those who really need it) why I should allow him to use/integrate/modify my code without giving back.

Sidenote: I also prefer to use GPL or similar software, and thus to show support for it, as seen with the WINE project, where MIT has done more harm than good.

Sidenote2: I wouldn't like Missile software to be open/free, though of course, within the NATO and allies it should be shared and discussed (under highest security conditions).

Quote: Original post by Kwizatz
I still don't quite buy it, I think you guys are overestimating what can be done with source code alone and may be missing some things that are possible even without it.

I agree. I imagine source code for a missle would be about useless for evading it. I can't see any real use it would be.

This topic has gone in a weird place, lol.

You know what, I'd just like to say that after a lot of reflection I realize that what I said here was stupid and insensitive. I -still- believe that open knowledge, in some neccessary areas like mathemathics, not finished products like games, helps the human race as a whole. I would also like it if there was a better way for people to get rewarded for research and development time -- and I'd like to point out, again, that the theme wasn't people getting things for free.

But saying that people should be able to buy the source code with the product was an insult to both the people who've worked hard to provide me the software I use, and the people who actually share the knowledge they have with others. So I apologize for that.