US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register) [LWN.net]

US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register)

Posted Jun 12, 2012 21:22 UTC (Tue) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106)
In reply to: US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register) by endecotp
Parent article: US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register)

> Is it because they consider the freedoms of free software to be more important than the right to not be blown up? Some other reasons?

People have the right not to be blown up--provided, naturally, that they're not trying to blow other people up--regardless of whatever you might choose to put in a software license. Writing "you may not use this software to violate others' rights" is superfluous, and just complicates matters for no reason. If you can't contribute to a project knowing that it might be twisted by someone else to cause harm, then you might as well give up on ever doing anything good for anyone.

Keep in mind that no matter what you put in the license, it's eventually going to become public domain. No matter how hard you try, you can't control it forever, and even if you could, it wouldn't prevent others from reimplementing the same thing under a different license. You're not going to stop any missiles from being launched by withholding militarily-neutral contributions to Linux. Just avoid areas whose use is predominantly aggressive.

(Log in to post comments)

Recursive argumentation

Posted Jun 13, 2012 16:35 UTC (Wed) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106) [Link]

> At this point, would it be OK to blow up the US army and the Nobel Peace Prize that orders the bombings where many innocent people have died? Have they lost their right not to be blown up?

I don't know about the Nobel Peace Prize, but certainly individual members of the U.S. Army have initiated a number of unprovoked attacks against non-aggressors. Their victims have a right to respond in kind. Note, however, that there is no "guilt by association"; not all members of the Army are aggressors, just those who participated in, or otherwise chose to contribute to, the attacks. An indiscriminate response would be as much aggression as the original attack.

> Logic would command that people keep their right not to be blown up, even after blowing other people up.

You're trying to argue that your conclusion is logical just because you don't like the alternative, which is a fallacy. Logic (in the form of the legal principle of estoppel) dictates that when some individual attacks you, they can make no logical argument that it would be wrong for you to attack them without condemning their own action--and if they can perform an action which they acknowledge to be wrong without inviting punishment, then there is no logical reason why you can't do the same to them.

> How are the bombings going to stop otherwise?

First, just because you have the right to respond in kind doesn't mean you are forced to do so. Second, responding in self-defense against an attacker is not equivalent to acting as the aggressor, and does not invite reprisal the way an initial, aggressive attack does. If you can initiate an attack then you can also respond to one, but the reverse is not necessarily true. Finally, there is the principle of proportional response to consider; the one who _escalates_ the attack is in the wrong, even if they were originally the victim.

Recursive argumentation

Posted Jun 13, 2012 19:54 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

I think that many centuries of absurd rivalries between families (see Romeo and Juliet for a lyricized version, and there are many modern examples) have taught us that such an arithmetic of death does not always work out. Repaying in kind cannot always be done surgically (even in these modern times and with remote drones), there are errors and collateral victims, and those innocent bystanders have families who are not usually happy about it.

Morally, if not logically, the mere possibility of an innocent victim should preclude engaging in any further attacks. I very much prefer the way of dealing with IRA in UK (and now ETA in Spain) than with Al Qaeda. Of course it is very easy to talk when the victims do not come from your family; it has the most value when you know the victims. I read an article recently that seems appropriate: No, It Has Not 'Always Been This Way'.

Recursive argumentation

Posted Jun 13, 2012 21:05 UTC (Wed) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106) [Link]

> Morally, if not logically, the mere possibility of an innocent victim should preclude engaging in any further attacks.

You have the right not to respond, if that is your wish. You can even try to persuade others to adopt your views. If someone does choose to respond, however, then that is _their_ right. They will be responsible for any consequences, intended or otherwise. If you tried to stand in their way, _you_ would be the aggressor, attacking without provocation.

Recursive argumentation

Posted Jun 13, 2012 21:35 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

If someone does choose to respond, however, then that is _their_ right.

A curious kind of "right", not recognized by most legislations or even international treaties. Not to mention philosophical systems or even religions (anything more sophisticated than the code of Hammurabi or the Old Testament's "an eye for an eye"). I thought that the civilized world had agreed long ago that outlawing such vigilante practices was "progress", but apparently regressions happen outside software too.

Now I will take the liberty of recommending you a movie: The Beast of War (1988), about an earlier Afghanistan war.

Recursive argumentation

Posted Jun 13, 2012 22:37 UTC (Wed) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106) [Link]

> A curious kind of "right", not recognized by most legislations or even international treaties.

That's not at all surprising. Legislatures and government representatives involved in treaties tend to ignore natural rights, since their very existence conflicts with them. They also like to deny people their inherent right to self-defense in order to make them more dependent.

> Not to mention philosophical systems or even religions....

Not that it matters, but you're glossing over quite a few philosophical systems here, modern and otherwise. The standard libertarian philosophy based on the Non-Aggression Principle, for example, or really _any_ system of natural rights which does not amount to pacifism, and thus must endorse self-defense to at least some degree. Even the ones which prohibit _personal_ self-defense still tend to allow for both restitution and, for cases of deliberate harm, retribution. They just require one to act through an intermediary (the state, in the form of civil and criminal law). In this case the state is committed to enforcing your rights in some ways (albeit poorly), while infringing on them in others.

Religions deal in right and wrong, not rights, so that's an entirely different issue. Whether it is right or wrong to respond in kind to an aggressive attack is orthogonal to whether the response is _justifiable_--whether the other party can object to the response without hypocrisy. The great thing about the estoppel approach to crime and punishment is that it doesn't matter whether the original action was right or wrong. You don't have to consider the _morality_ if it at all, which is what allows it to work objectively even when the individuals involved don't share a particular moral code. All that matters is that you can't logically object to someone else acting toward you just as you have chosen to act toward them.