|
A few months ago, several computers in the US Air Force they were affected by malware due to the simple fact that they were using Windows.
This embarrassing situation has made the Marina I have decided not to think twice and install linux on all computers that control one of your UAVs from takeoff y landing vertical. |
The contract for the installation of the operating system of Tux has a value of 28 million dollars and has been awarded without competition to the Intelligence and Information Systems division of Raytheon, a company that will create a special distribution for the military branch.
Regarding the use of the GPL, they assure that they can make any necessary changes to the code without the obligation to share it openly as long as the software is used only by the military and the contractors do not maintain any type of rights under the development.
The use of Linux for now affects the 168 Northrop Grumman MQ-8B UAV, but it would not be surprising if they end up adopting that operating system on absolutely every major computer.
What a simple answer for my good taste, that they do it to improve their military developments does not mean that they are just ready to kill people. Linux is free to use and it is your right to make modifications ...
The OS as everything is just a tool, therefore, if the tool is free and modifiable, there should not be any type of problem, the problem comes that if the additions that will make the system benefit other study or application nuclei? , because if so, they should share it, and not close it, for me that is the goal that it is free, to help each other.
By the way, as a form of social good, the military is obliged to share the code they have made or will do.
I agree except in one thing, that the GPL license does not force you to share the code that is wrong because we will not know what they are really using the technology for and if what worries is that the "enemy" sees it, that would be absurd since that the United States has more money and that would not make a difference, instead of spending on mamas because they do not invest it in something cheap or at least in helping the needy, but the important thing is NOT to see the United States is the best, right?
It's complicated.
But why not, considering the linux philosophy, which is for everyone.
Although you have to take into account what you say after «Ergo, ...»
It would be good to share part of the programs that are developed, since many of them must be of very good quality and usable for other purposes (beneficial of course ...)
Anyway, it is ethical-difficult ...
It is not clear to me how they should not share the modified code if it is based on GNU / Linux… does this violate the license? Unless they create an application that runs on Linux, but is soft with a proprietary license. Then they wouldn't be raping him.
Although I share the idea of argento. The military itself is wrong, we should put weapons aside and develop things that are beneficial to humanity.
Weapons should not be put aside, they should be legal without permission, as in the US.
If they are going to kill you, kill yourself first if there is no alternative.
There are people who do not deserve to live, and that is what weapons are for, to exterminate that scum.
The military is defense, so it is NOT wrong to defend against external attacks.
I never saw such an ignorant comment, with such a low use of reason, Surely you are one of those who live that everything must be machine-gunned, and who decides who lives and who does not? Not even those who carry out death sentences have that right. You only speak because they have no experience: if all weapons were legal, you could not complain when a mentally ill person bombs your house and injures your loved ones, you need time in a country that has a real conflict and experience firsthand what it is to lose arms with a landmine. Research on EMOCIANAL INTELLIGENCE, it is clear that you must study.
I pose another question to your question: Do we forget where the Internet itself comes from?
As a certain poet said: There is nothing good or bad; it is human thought that makes it appear that way.
Indeed, several of the great advances in software technology come from the military.
A hammer can be used to hang a painting or to kill a person. In no case will the fault be of the tool.
VERY interesting this data.
Thank you! Cheers! Paul.
SLUC («Free Software for Civil Use») is a software license created in December 2006 by a group of Spanish programmers, in order to avoid
military use of this type of software.
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLUC
Anyway we don't use that expression here, that's why I don't understand well
If they are going to kill you and the only thing you can do is kill ...
Would you rather be killed?
Well not me, legitimate defense.
He who kills another does not deserve to live, on the other hand
To the ball ... after these statements there is nothing more to add.
It is software. That it is under one license or another, it does not matter. Although, free software allows a level of auditing that is impossible to achieve with closed software. How else can you ensure that there is nothing extra in the software put up by an enemy?
I do not see any ethical problem in that they use Linux for military use, in fact, by the definition of free software and as established by the GPLv2, it can be used for any purpose. There are other types of licenses, which limit the use of the software, but does anyone think that would prevent the military from using it? I think these limitations are of no practical utility, and more likely to be unfairly applied.
The ethical question that I would ask myself is not whether it is okay for the military to use Linux, but all the waste of money on weapons and war, when there is hunger, lack of work, health for the few, difficulties in accessing education, housing proper and dignified, etc. Is the money spent in and by the military ethical?
I believe that Linux should always be used in the military environment, when using Windows it is not known that it runs in the background and that directly affects military security, the problem is that there is no awareness of that, as Envi said, until the The internet emerged as a military product and whether we like it or not, the armed forces are totally necessary for deterrence, otherwise we are at the mercy of anyone.
If I modify the code of an application under the GPL license I am NOT obliged to share that code with anyone, now if I share that application with someone else I am obliged to share the source code as well. I suppose that the GPL does not apply only to real people but to legal persons, so while "the navy" or "DARPA" or "the CIA" does not share the applications with anyone else, they do not have to share the code (I clarify that they do not I know nothing about laws, I only offer my interpretation).
GNU / LINUX is free and that means that even unethical entities like "the military" can make use of it. It is also unethical for the military to use science and technology and yet 1 in 3 scientists work for the military ( more or less direct). The unethical is the military.
Interesting pose ...
The question is meaningless in this case, once the free tool has been declared, with the right to use and modify it, and without the obligation to share it, its use cannot be limited.
There is no ethical option applicable to the tool, the only ethical option is in the user and the use that he decides, and it is obvious that a military man can have a perfectly ethical point of view in his opinion that is different from another.
If they do not use GNU / Linux they will create an operating system for military use, if they have not already done so and all this is a smoke screen. They also use the wheel, fire or knives, inventions without a license due to their antiquity, and nobody questions anything.
Ultimately, a motherfucker is, whatever he uses ...
It has been used militarily for YEARS. The AWACS has GNU / Linux installed on some radar control systems.
And not to mention Bolivarian Venezuela.
I do not care if it is used, the truth is that I do not quite understand the comments against it.
There are trash people who don't deserve to live. EYE, I'm not saying that killing is good, but killing the one who kills well, give him an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
There are people who do not deserve to live
The problem is not for any reason that the software used for war purposes is free. The freedoms of the software cannot be restricted because it can be used for military purposes. Technology is an enabler: a hammer can be used to build something very beneficial to humanity or to hammer someone to death. The problem lies in the low morale of some people who use the technologies. For the rest, if a military power decides to kill, it will do so with the support of free or proprietary software and it will not go around asking for software license permits or things like that.
I don't like it any way, it's that these murderous sons of bitches will use it to kill people.
Excuse my language but NO, fuck off, especially if the DARPA, CIA and those kinds of entities that only harm us are planning to use it.
I think that Linux is an open platform for any use, however, Linux is freedom not to submit or conquer said use, the philosophy of Linux would be tritional, but we all know that the US Army knows little about morals and ethics, they should share the code if they respect this platform. and his philosophy
Since the original idea of this system is based on ethical principles (solidarity and social contribution), it is not correct at all ...
Well, your trolling doesn't interest me, kid either, so if you don't have something to say other than being cool or offending, don't do it.
There are comments, in case you haven't noticed, that say not to use Linux because they will use it to kill, what I'm doing is explaining why there is nothing wrong with using it to kill.
Do not look at the speck in another's eye, but at the beam in yours, kid.
Your poor approach to kill or to be killed or bitten by a mosquito is in my opinion of no interest in this debate, and probably in any debate between people over 6 years old. What is discussed is the use of GNU / Linux for military purposes and the obligation or not to share the modifications of the code under the GPL license. I do not believe that the Talion Law or the death penalty is discussed here https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ley_del_Tali%F3n
I do not think so