US military UAVs migrate to Linux

http://linuxgizmos.com/u-s-military-uav-control-systems-switch-to-linux/

by WestCoastJustin • 12 years ago

51 47 12 years ago

linuxgizmos.com

easy_rider• 12 years ago

Will it have Adobe Updater pre-installed?

qwerty_asdf• 12 years ago

No, but the targeting software will include Amazon search results.

leorocky• 12 years ago

Now I wonder if the GPL license should have a "do not use for killing people" clause in it.

lutorm• 12 years ago

Then it would not be free... but I wonder if shooting a linux-powered missile counts as "redistribution" under the GPL, so that you would then be forced to give the target a copy of your software?

kijin• 12 years ago

At the very least, I guess that would be a good reason to avoid implementing the missile control software as a kernel module.

Or maybe not, since the missile is clearly intended to be destroyed upon reaching the target.

rdmckenzie• 12 years ago

I'm sure that adding a small disk with the source code to the warhead would be an acceptable and valued solution.

qbrass• 12 years ago

They'll send you another missile with the source code just as soon as they get your location.

Jtsummers2• 12 years ago

There are already pieces of software whose licenses preclude military use. One I saw once was a smalltalk implementation.

EDIT: my recollection was off. They don't strictly bar it from those fields but may require a non-free license.

http://www.exept.de/en/products/smalltalkx/download

TallGuyShort• 12 years ago

Parts of the CERN Colt library expressly forbid military applications: http://acs.lbl.gov/software/colt/license.html. It's probably impossible to enforce, but it's a noble statement, IMO.

mpyne• 12 years ago

If it had a "Field of Use" restriction it wouldn't be Free Software.

ineedtosleep• 12 years ago

It would go against their definition of "free software"[1]:

    A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms:
        The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).

[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

rectangletangle• 12 years ago

Yeah, but killing people also goes against freedom.

steve19• 12 years ago

There is also a rifle that runs Linux. It allows you to easily hit a target at 1000 yards in high wind with no skill. I have used it.

If you made an OS that disallowed military use / 'killing people' you would exclude GPS satellites (used to guide smart bombs etc.). It would disallow military delivered aid (same US Navy ships that deliver aid can also be used to deliver munitions / support a fleet). It would disallow legitimate defense of any country.

aaronem5• 12 years ago

I have used it.

How was it? I've heard a lot of really impressive claims; I'd be interested to know whether the hardware lives up to the hype.

ams6110• 12 years ago

Reminds me of Crockford's JSON license: "The software shall be used for Good, not Evil" [1] and his story of how IBM objected to that, and he wrote them a special exception "I give permission for IBM, its customers, partners, and minions, to use JSLint for evil." [2]

1: http://www.json.org/license.html

2: http://dev.hasenj.org/post/3272592502/ibm-and-its-minions

executive• 12 years ago

Makes sense. IBM tech did power the Holocaust.

superuser2• 12 years ago

Apple's EULA prohibits the use of Apple products to run nuclear equipment. This is often cited by proponents of free software as an example of the Big Brother-ish restrictions they are trying to eliminate from the world.

aaronem5• 12 years ago

Do they also object to the clearly stated restrictions, which TI places on its general-purpose microcontroller lines, against their use in life-critical equipment?

TI's reasoning is that they don't want to be sued because someone designed, say, a fly-by-wire control system which uses COTS MSP430 parts, and then accidentally built one with a bogus MSP that went toes-up on final and brought a jetliner down short of the runway. It's not that they are averse to their parts being used in life-critical applications; it's that they have specific lines for that purpose, consisting of parts which have undergone much heavier and more stringent testing as compared to the general-purpose lines, and if a designer of life-critical hardware can't be bothered to get in touch with TI and arrange to source parts from one of those lines, then TI's not going to be held responsible for a bad result -- nor should they.

I dare say Apple's reasoning is similar. It's not that they actually expect (e.g.) iTunes to comprise a critical component of a nuclear weapon's operating software, inasmuch as such a device has any; rather, it's that if someone does for some lunatic reason actually build an iTunes module which happens to set off a 1Kt IND when you play the same Lady Gaga track ten times in a row, Apple's not going to be held responsible. Granted, it's a particularly stupid and pointless example of gratuitous lawyerese, but the underlying reasoning is probably very similar to TI's. (Although I do rather doubt that Apple makes a special version of iTunes which is certified for nuclear-weapons use.)

NAFV_P• 12 years ago

Apple's EULA prohibits the use of Apple products to run nuclear equipment.

So I'm guessing MRI scanners prefer linux or BSD.

reality_czech• 12 years ago

The killing part is fine. The GPL doesn't impose any restrictions on that. However, the next the next version of the GPL will mandate that UAVs broadcast this continuously:

http://www.jwz.org/hacks/why-cooperation-with-rms-is-impossi...

rainmaking• 12 years ago

The no-kill-GPL would just collapse under the additional complexity and people would just end up not using software licensed under it.

For example, what kind of killing do you mean? Could you sue a doctor for using a medical device containing no-kill-GPL software for losing a patient? What about abortions? We've already put the question of when life starts into the GPL and haven't even started covering military use.

Better to follow the good old adage of engineering and use the right tool for the job. Use copyleft licenses to further software freedom, and use activism to achieve your political goals.

staunch• 12 years ago

If we have flying killer robots they may as well be running software we can, more or less, trust.

zurn• 12 years ago

We must build Skynet so that it is impenetrable and can be absolutely trusted...

frozenport• 12 years ago

More like Slowaris, har har har.

notfoss2• 12 years ago

Raytheon is converting the VTUAV TCS “block II” system from Sun’s aging, UNIX-based Solaris 8 OS to a “B2VL” version of Linux.

I wonder what this B2VL version of Linux is.

Also, it seems that USA is going full steam ahead with Linux adoption, what with NASA switching to Debian and similar stories. I wonder if it gives credibility to the (conspiracy) theories by some that Linux is systematically being made weaker by government agencies.[1][2]

[1] https://igurublog.wordpress.com/2014/04/08/julian-assange-de...

[2] https://igurublog.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/biography-of-a-cy...

Perdition• 12 years ago

Why would the government migrate to an OS they are making weaker?

If Linux was banned from use in critical systems that might lend credibility to that conspiracy theory, Linux being used in sensitive systems destroys any credibility that theory has.

dagw• 12 years ago

If you want to go full on conspiracy, then you'd point out that perhaps all those critical systems are running a secret NSA branch of Linux, was all the backdoors removed and unannounced security holes patched.

weland• 12 years ago

Linux is a generic-enough name that you might actually be running a well-rigged flavour while they aren't.

AlexLord• 12 years ago

You're talking about the US government as if it is a single entity with a consistent driving motive. There's no reason that one section could (accidentally or intentionally) do damage to another section.

kev009• 12 years ago

Well, you wouldn't want to weaken your own systems too much. If you know about a vuln, others can know about a vuln, and those others could easily be 'the enemy'.

The main credibility I could see in the general claim is encouraging over-complexity and insecure defaults. These can be worked around yourself and lend a high degree of plausible deniability. But even then, your own kind (fellow government departments) are generally all kinds of incompetent and would fall victim to your traps so I just couldn't see how this would not backfire worse than it ever helped. Counter intel folks would be enraged.

notfoss2• 12 years ago

The main credibility I could see in the general claim is encouraging over-complexity and insecure defaults.

This is the thing which concerns me the most. The simplicity is being deprecated in favor of over-engineering.

These can be worked around yourself and lend a high degree of plausible deniability.

Exactly. I am still not able to digest that the heartbleed vulnerability was an innocent mistake.

But even then, your own kind (fellow government departments) are generally all kinds of incompetent and would fall victim to your traps so I just couldn't see how this would not backfire worse than it ever helped. Counter intel folks would be enraged.

This can be easily bypassed using a hardened version of Linux.

US military UAVs migrate to Linux

Related Stories