It doesn't seem to absurd to think that weapons manufacturers use some FLOSS libraries. Anyone that works with software probably uses some open source or FLOSS license some time or another. And while the missile (or whatever) is probably not HPL, the kicker is that it can't use any HPL components either.

Let's say that OpenCV (image processing library) was HPL (which it is not). Then, no matter what license the missile was being developed under (probably some proprietary XXX), it could not use OpenCV for it's guidance system.

If you publish FLOSS code under the HPL, it protects you from contributing (probably without knowing about it) to creation of products that are intended to cause harm.

Way ahead of you.

Quoting from http://www.peta.org/hpl.htm#pro_con [peta.org]:

"I personally consider the fact that HPL is incompatible with GPL as it's main disadvantage. Believe me, we have thought long and hard about ways to make the HPL GPL-compatible, but we have finally reached the conclusion that it is fundamentally and utterly impossible. Like most FLOSS proponents, I would like to see a widespread distribution and use of the code that I make available to the community; but I would rather take the risk of no one every using my code than letting a single person or organisation use it to cause harm. So, in conclusion, the ideological "harm-less" principle takes precedence over practical inconvenience and I side with the HPL. "

Quoting from http://www.peta.org/hpl.htm#pro_con "The fact that HPL licensed software is considered non-free according to FSF might sound harsh. We value freedom very much and HPL licensed software grants you far reaching freedoms to use and redistribute your code (and it complies with the remaining three clauses in FSFs free-software definition). However, and this is an ideological bifurcation point, we value prevention of harm higher that the freedom to inflict harm. This makes HPL licensed software non-free according to FSF, but this is a conscious, ideologically motivated, restriction of freedom." "The HPL is not open-source according to OSI; but we don't think that OSI owns the term open-source. Furthermore we don't think that their requirement "6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor" has relevance to the definition of the term open-source (even though we can agree that it is generally a good thing). We therefore consider software licensed under the HPL to be genuinely open-source. " It doesn't have to be approved by FSF to be FLOSS and it doesn't have to be approved by the OSI to be open source.

It might not be right for every project. However, Quoting from http://www.peta.org/hpl.htm "The open source community will hopefully benefit from the HPL since some software can be made publicly available that would otherwise have been withheld altogether."

Perhaps you should check out the less restrictive version of the HPL, the wHPL (that only applies to humans) http://www.peta.org/hpl.htm#whpl

A license that forbids you to use goto... is that a bad thing?

Who defines what is free software? FSF, the OSI? Sure it's in violation of freedom 0, but that's the whole point of the license! It's free in every respect that the FreeBSD license is EXCEPT it prevents harm. It is free or open source or libre or whaterver you wan't to call it.

I think it's great that you posted and I agree that the terminology is tricky! One legal definition of "bodily harm" (according to Wikipedia) is: "any hurt or injury to a person that interferes with the health or comfort of the person and that is more than merely transient or trifling in nature." This is really not that much clearer in the general philosophical sense :/ But since it is a legal term currently in use, there is quite a broad consensus (precedent) about how it is applicable to a real situation.

You're right that it only prevents bodily harm. However "bodily harm" is a legal term and actually includes some forms of mental harm as well. What other types of harm do you have in mind?

twitter might be a silly social media and a complete waste of time; but everybody should be allowed to waste their lives in the way that they see fit. This is just sad.