[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > From: David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Yes, it would be non-free. Theft is a field of endevor. Note that Berkeley > > has a program (or so I've heard) that still prohibits South African police > > from using it, because of their past history, and nobody has changed the > > license. > > Criminal laws against theft and murder already exist, so there's no reason for > your license to deal with these activities.
Ah, but the question pertained to ostensibly /de jure/ legal activities, because they are acts committed by governments themselves. Remember that the Holocaust was completely "legal" in Germany (however, I do not intend a /reductio ad Hitlerum/ here). Is a license DFSG-non-free if it has restrictions against certain uses to which the author is deeply morally opposed, and where such uses are clearly injurious to person or property (and not merely a "religious" objection on the part of the licensor)? Are all activities legitimate "fields of endeavor"? To take a somewhat more concrete example: suppose I write a program which can be used to design explosive devices. Such devices have many appropriate uses, in mining, construction, and so forth. Perhaps it is unnecessary that I explicitly restrict use by terrorists, since terrorism is illegal. (However, if I did so anyhow, would that make my license DFSG-non-free?) On the other hand, perhaps I do not wish for my software to be used by certain governments for "military" purposes - which are by definition "legal", yet just as clearly destructive. Must an author permit such military use for a license to be DFSG-free?
