Can the Terms of the GPL Prevent GNU/Linux being used for War?

&#62;It should be pointed out, infairness, that the US Navy will also be using these drones to detect drug running in the Caribbean and I don't think anyone would object to that<p>I'll object to it. It's nobody's business to dictate to people what they can do with their own bodies. The current drug laws create a black market and fuel gang violence. As demonstrated by countries like Portugal, treating drug use as a health issue instead of a criminal issue reduces addiction rates and side effects from drug consumption. Thus, anything which polices the current drug laws is destructive by it's very nature.

War is pretty much the definition of "we don't care what you think and will do whatever we want", so this is probably a moot point.

A few things to consider:<p>- The government has the power of eminent domain, and the military has a history of "seizing" intellectual property to use for military endeavors.<p>- The restrictions of the GPL are mostly associated with distribution. As the US Government is a single, sovereign entity, someone with a deep understanding of the law would need to determine whether modifying GPLd source code and putting it on a sovereign-owned drone was "distributing" the code.

Interesting question, but IMHO a rather crap analysis. They don't seem to make any distinction between completely separate legal issues.<p>For example, I'm sure the DoD could classify some software that was a derivative work of some GPL licensed work as top secret. IANAL buy my guess is that the classification itself would probably be upheld by a court, but that wouldn't bring the DoD into compliance with the GPL. I cannot imagine that. It would be a complete carte blanche for the DoD in regards to any and all IPR. Even if they could legally do it I cannot imagine them doing it. It would be outright theft.<p>The same goes for modifying the GPL. I can go and rip off the GPL and license my software under the "Bjornsing GPL Derivative License" all I want. If somebody licenses my software under those terms they are no less bound by the license just because I stole the license itself. That's a separate issue between me and the FSF (and possibly between me and the state if deemed criminal copyright infringement). At least so I imagine. Again IANAL.

Another example of Betteridge's Law.

Does Java's license still forbid its use in medical equipment, aviation systems and nuclear facility control?<p>I imagine then that the licensor can put what ever terms in the license that they choose. I'd like to watch, though, as you go about enforcing a "No War" license on somebody who is prepared to wage a war.

It seems to me that any country that would be worried enough about the legality of this clause, is unlikely to be a "bad actor" in any conflict.