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 22 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
That doesn't work here. (It might work for some cases, but the big one is research where often the only deliverables are scientific papers, not code or installable binaries.)
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.