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.
Which makes me think: In the limited scale if pervasive and seemingly perpetual engagements and theaters we are currently experiencing, might there be some leverage? Some of these are not "all out" campaigns, and image and public perception do play significant roles in their continued viability. Their limited scale may also somewhat more readily place them within the purview of civilian and criminal courts -- at least in some cases.
I guess I'll have to read the article.
- The government has the power of eminent domain, and the military has a history of "seizing" intellectual property to use for military endeavors.
- 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.
There was a satirical post to lwn.net about a month ago that asked whether or not the US Navy would need to pack a CD into missiles that contained GPL software so that the target of the missile would get a copy of the source code when it was "delivered" to them(http://lwn.net/Articles/501536/ ).
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.
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.
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.
Java is GPL licensed now, so no.
