begin oe_protect.scr
Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> __/ [ 7 ] on Tuesday 15 August 2006 19:44 \__
>
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>> Open source project adds "no military use" clause to the GPL
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> | That's intriguing enough, but the really interesting thing about GPU is
>>> | the license its developers have given it. They call it a "no military
>>> | use" modified version of the GNU General Public License (GPL).
>>> `----
>>>
>>> http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/08/14/1438204
>>
>> Impossible to define 'military use'.
>
> What about 'use by the military'? I guess the US military uses Apache, for
> example. Maybe the clause could/should be augmented to describe what
> reasoning manifested its inclusion. This could shed some light on when/where
> borderline cases deem acceptable (e.g. information and in intelligence vs.
> fatalities and violent interrogation).
Come to that, if a robot is acting _in defence_ of a person, that would
presumably be a good thing. Does a bodyguard count as military use?
What about a robot performing identity checks in order to allow or deny
access to something? Does policing (which is paramilitary) count here?
I would rather see Asimov's laws adopted than a statement of "no
military use", since as is said above, "military use" cannot be defined.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
After your lover has gone you will still have PEANUT BUTTER!
|
|
