humanamerican

The only one of your sources that directly contradicts what I am claiming is the Wikipedia line about the source being publicly available. But that is inaccurate. All the major open source licenses require source code be available to anyone who has access to the executable form of the software - not the public in general. So, if some FOSS software is available to download on the Internet without any restriction on its access, then so must the source code. Most FOSS software is distributed this way.

However, if you write software under an open source license, you are not required to share that software with anyone. The license requires you to distribute the source ALONG WITH the software. But it doesn't require you to make the software freely available to everyone, or anyone.

Tying back to my original point, which has been derailed by myriad people who refuse to read before thinking they know things, I was saying that we don't need exceptions for military software because it can be licensed as open source without that code being handed over to our enemies. But requiring it to be open source would, for example, preclude the DoD from building kill switches into the F-35s that they sell to our allies, because they'd be required to share the design of the plane's control systems along with the product - again, only to the people who receive a copy of the product - not to the public at large.

Its not just GPL. MPL, BSD work this way as well. And the original post refers to open source, not "code available to all". Come back with a commonly used open source license that enforces what you're describing and maybe you'll have a point. Otherwise, why are we arguing about things that can just be looked up?

That is simply not true. Go read a few open source licenses and see for yourself. They only require that the source code be distributed with copies of the software itself. The code is not required to be made available to the general public.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Go read the GPL and you'll see that's what it says too.

The lack of understanding around open source is alarming. Open Source licenses only require someone to share the source with anyone who gets a copy of the binary. So top secret military software can still be open source because if the DoD doesn't share the binary, they don't have to share the code either. But forcing it to be open source ensures that if that software is ever declassified and distributed to 3rd parties, those third parties will have a legal right to the source.

If the DoD gives some ooen source software to Ukraine they are required to give the source code to Ukraine - not to Russia.

So you didn't read my comment before replying?

Open source only requires source distribution with binary distribution, so the software can be open source and still not publicly distributed. It just means if its ever declassified, the source will be required to be distributed along with the software itself.

Why? Open source only requires sharing the source when sharing the software. No distribution of software - no distribution of source. But if they are gonna sell software to other militaries or civilian contractors, we have a right to know what they're selling.

And no, hiding your code doesn't generally make your software more secure.

I wasn't criticising AI. Sounds like you just wanted to pick a fight. Who hurt you?

We are not alone. And we should be getting louder.

Americans don't want them here either, but Fascists have taken over. They are a minority of the population but have manipulated the dummies and our very flawed election process to impose their will on the rest of us.