[drewcrawford]

This is kind of off-topic, but I don't know where else to ask.

Have we seriously entertained using "OSS" licenses that would prevent NSA & co. from using them?

I know Douglas Crockford has his "don't be evil" JSON license that got everybody's knickers in a twist. And I know OSI has a nice page on why field of use restrictions are bad.

However... I wonder if these pre-Snowden viewpoints credibly consider an organization that uses the software community's tools to conduct targeted attacks on that community. I mean, these documents suggest a much scarier attack on software developers than, say, putting the Linux kernel in a TiVo or whatever they changed in the GPLv3.

On the other hand, maybe FOU restrictions are still bad on principle. What do you all think?

[mildtrepidation]

This is an amusing suggestion... do you really think the people who are bugging just about every line of communication in existence and subverting every possible method of secure communication and storage give two shits about the terms of software licenses?

[sjtgraham]

Wouldn't it be futile since the federal government has sovereign immunity? It's not as if you could sue for unlicensed use.

[hobs]

http://torrentfreak.com/u-s-caught-pirating-military-softwar...

It has happened as far as I can tell.

[jasomill]

In the US, sovereign immunity doesn't exempt the federal government or its employees from criminal prosecution, and there are statutes on the books that explicitly waive immunity for civil cases that arise as a result of contract disputes (among other things).

[JabavuAdams]

Right, so the Constitution didn't stop them, but a FOSS licence will?

[jlgaddis]

Suppose you wrote MediaWiki, by yourself, and thus had the authority to change its license. Further suppose you did so, adding in restrictions like you mentioned that forbid the NSA from using it.

Now, assume you found out, via a leak of some of these classified documents, that they were using it -- in violation of your license -- and you decided to sue.

Having seen some of the excuses they've come up with before (and assuming that you have as well, which seems like a reasonable assumption), why wouldn't they simply argue that the software applications they use internally are classified, that disclosure of such would be detrimental to national security, and, because of that, your case should be thrown out (like they have argued so many other times)?