- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Ukraine used ArduPilot to help it wipe out Russian targets. It wasn’t the first time and it won’t be the last.
Open source software used by hobbyist drones powered an attack that wiped out a third of Russia’s strategic long range bombers on Sunday afternoon, in one of the most daring and technically coordinated attacks in the war.
In broad daylight on Sunday, explosions rocked air bases in Belaya, Olenya, and Ivanovo in Russia, which are hundreds of miles from Ukraine. The Security Services of Ukraine’s (SBU) Operation Spider Web was a coordinated assault on Russian targets it claimed was more than a year in the making, which was carried out using a nearly 20-year-old piece of open source drone autopilot software called ArduPilot.
ArduPilot’s original creators were in awe of the attack. “That’s ArduPilot, launched from my basement 18 years ago. Crazy,” Chris Anderson said in a comment on LinkedIn below footage of the attack.
Even when the other side uses it?
deleted by creator
When open source software has its use limited
for war, it stops being open source.Eh. I don’t really care what
the OSIa handful of tech giants in a trenchcoat have to say about the ethics of my licenses.If someone wants to allow modification, distribution, and usage of your software, in the spirit of open source, but don’t want it to be used by organizations that bomb children, I’d consider that better than an Open Source™️ license.
I completely agree however in a situation like this, the only solution would be to never have any open source software for drones. You can put that limited license on your software, but come on, do you think a warring nation is going to concern themselves with that? The only solution is to not have open source software for things that can even be remotely used like this
If I were Ukraine I sure as shit wouldn’t care what license you have on it. If it’s available and I can easily use it without consequence, I would use it.
Yeah, i don’t think any military will care about what restrictions you put in your license anyway. What are you going to do about it? Sue them?
Yeah, sadly they’ll just use it. Or they’ll pay a contractor who uses it and claims that they made it themselves.
Better to just roll over by default then, yeah /s
If you create a technology and make it publicly available you need to consider the possible uses and misuses. Misusers wont be held back by a license limitation. That is a simple fact of life.
Adopting that attitude toward anything is pretty self-defeating. It’s the same bad argument used against gun regulations in the US: “only misusers will have guns”.
Whether you agree with more or less regulations on anything, the “misusers will just do it anyway” is a bad argument.
The FSF is very much the opposite of “a handful of tech giants in a trenchcoat,” yet they take the same position.
Yeah. The FSF is far from perfect as well.
JFC. There’s at least one in every forum.
You can say this about any change, or innovation - vaccines, democracy, the Internet, psychology.
If you want to push it completely into a political only view, why should we not become an isolationist nation, which steals but never contributes back?
The post I replied to stated it was a project they could support on an article about how it was used as a weapon against Russia. I believe it’s use as a weapon on Russia is why they support it. I asked them a simple question to invoke them to think, but then you chimed about all technology and even vaccines. And then talking about becoming an isolationist nation? What are you even talking about?
Asking people to think by riding the line of just asking a question is pretty lame. If you want people to think, don’t bury that. The method you employ is the same disingenuous tactic to defend the other side.
What if the Russians did the same? They didn’t and it’s not on the table. They’ve already made up a war and prolonged for multiple years in an attempt to kill off and reclaim Ukraine
Nothing was disingenuous. Don’t care if you think it is lame.
That’s the thing. I’m not replying to you specifically. I don’t think you’re going to change. Chances are most people like you don’t.
I’m replying to educate all of the onlookers. What this guy did sucks and here’s why. And this is what you do about it.
That’s disingenuous.
That is your reply…? Are you sure there is nothing better?
Yes that was my reply.
Where does the creator say they support its use for warfare? Did you even read what they said on the matter, or are you making assumptions? They just said it was “crazy” and “never in my wildest dreams did I predict this usage” [sic.]
I already said I believe and stated why. Nice try. I stated previous poster. Not the creator. You are changing the who.
“Nice try”? It’s called “misunderstanding.” I was wrong, mea culpa. But to default to assume I did it on purpose for…idk what? Come on.
You were too busy arguing and trying to push your opinion to bother to understand what was going on.
Get over yourself. It was an easy mistake to make. But if it’s so important to you to dance with glee because somebody misinterpreted what you wrote, go ahead and be that petty person. You must need the victory badly.
I asked a question, didn’t make a statement.
When did that happen?
“Just asking a question”, is a form of statement.
Sure.
“are you really that dumb?” “How stupid do you have to be to XYZ?”
Just a question, eh?
That’s a loaded question. You should learn the difference.
wow you’re shitty to everyone eh?
No.
Your question was not loaded at all I guess?
Sure, if they promise to just blow up empty planes sitting a tarmac.
Guaranteed Russia doesn’t go for it tho.