We had seven projects in DARPA POSH and one in IDEA. DARPA did not fund a single one of them. I'm afraid it's because they think we will self exploit ourselves like always and develop that stuff "for free" anyways. 1/4
-
Show this thread
-
I'm now considering a copyleft-style license that excludes uses in military, automotive, aerospace, astronautics, and energy applications, and research projects funded by US government funds that target those domains. 2/4
5 replies 2 retweets 23 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @oe1cxw
Could you just use a license tweaked to meet the FOSS definitions but still showstoppingly odious to those sectors? Same way GPL works on many industries.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RichFelker @oe1cxw
Or is the issue that they don't need to ship it or modified versions, just use it in-house & ship the output?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RichFelker
Excluding certain types of applications or users is a violation of the open source definition. So I wouldn't (couldn't) call it open source anymore of course.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @oe1cxw
You can make odious without excluding just by being incompatible with their business or deployment model. For example GPL works this way with game industry.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
In that case they'll pay for a special commercial license because they're unwilling to GPL their whole derived product.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.