|Subject:||RE: [Fsuk-manchester] HPL|
|Date:||Mon, 24 May 2010 10:12:43 +0100|
> Is it a joke/proof-of-concept licence, or does it have more political intentions (i.e. preventing shared libraries being used in the firmware of weapons systems etc.)? If the latter, what about non-lethal weapons? How do you define "harm" -- is RSI caused by coding too much considered "harm"?
> All seems a bit vague to me.
Political! It was inspired by the observation that lots of whalers and abattoirs these days are dependent on sophisticated software control. Somebody at PETA was a bit of a geek and had the idea that some kind of viral license that isn't allowed to be used to harm animals might somehow infect major projects that evil Japanese Whale hunters were using.
It isn't quite as vague as I may have made out earlier:
"....an intended purpose of causing bodily harm to humans, without their consent,
or of causing grievous bodily harm to any other animal from the phylum Chordata....."
I reckon a Judge could interpret that
Get a free e-mail account with Hotmail. Sign-up now.
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|