Subject: RE: non-military use license
From: "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 12:09:51 -0800

> Of course, physically harming or injuring others need not be unlawful:
> justification, self-defense, war.

The software license need not say that it can be appropriate, in a
self-defense situation, to hit a mugger in the head with the jewel case. 

Of course, that's more difficult when the software is downloaded in softcopy
form and the justification is "I killed this guy with my software in
self-defense."

Sometimes hypotheticals get so outrageous that they become fun again.

/Larry


> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan@ccil.org]
> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 11:28 AM
> To: Lawrence Rosen
> Cc: 'License Discuss'
> Subject: Re: non-military use license
> 
> Lawrence Rosen scripsit:
> 
> > Just as a license can't require the breaking of the law ["this software
> may
> > only be used to kill and maim innocent people" is not a valid
> provision],
> > the license need not require that the licensee obey the law ["this
> software
> > cannot be used to physically harm or injure others" is unnecessary].
> 
> Of course, physically harming or injuring others need not be unlawful:
> justification, self-defense, war.
> 
> > Why does this list spend so much time on hypothetical discussions?
> 
> For lack of any licenses to approve, I suppose.
> 
> --
> John Cowan  cowan@ccil.org  http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
> Does anybody want any flotsam? / I've gotsam.
> Does anybody want any jetsam? / I can getsam.
>         --Ogden Nash, No Doctors Today, Thank You