Subject: Re: Antiwar License
From: "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." <>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 02:09:04 -0500

If we think of OSD 5 as intending to prevent the restriction of choices or
prevent the proliferation of licenses that lock out certain groups from
participating in open source projects, doing so might decrease the
likelihood  that we will over-read the OSD, and apply it in a manner that
seems ill-suited to open source. Hence, I doubt that military techs are
going to be allowed to contribute to "live" open source projects...perhaps,
necessarily so. In that light, however, one should be able to restrict (but
not prohibit) certain uses  of software in devices used to [?] as part of an
open source software dual licensing approach to government uses.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Moen" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: Antiwar License

: Quoting Sergey Goldgaber (
: > Along similar lines, wouldn't it be possible to create a license
: > prohibiting the use of one's software by the military, the Defense
: > Department, and military contractors?
: If your question is whether it's possible to write an OSI-approved
: licence of that sort (and thus to qualify covered software for the "OSI
: Certified" certification mark), I would say it isn't, as that would
: clearly violate OSD provision 5 (No Discrimination Against Persons or
: Groups) and provision 6 (No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor).
: If you're asking whether it's possible to write a licence that's not
: OSD-compliant (i.e., _not_ open source), then I have no comment.
: --
: Cheers,            There are only 10 types of people in this world --
: Rick Moen          those who understand binary arithmetic and those who
: --
: license-discuss archive is at

license-discuss archive is at