> Enough people share a similar enough concept of justice for another approach to be both possible and pragmatic.
The issue isn't so much in "can you and some number of other people generally agree on what you want", it's in putting that in clear terms into a licence that a judge (or anybody, really) can read and clearly say who is and isn't in violation. And you'll want to do it in such a way that it's not open to interpretation, doesn't hinge on specific words etc, and preferably you'll do it under 100 pages. It is hard.
I believe that even agreement in what exactly you want isn't easy to achieve as the degrees of separation are hard to pin down. Plenty of people will agree to "no using this in drones that bomb people". Drones that only observe while other drones (or human-piloted jets) drop the bombs? Drones that aren't in the area but act as communication relays? A company that builds motors that, among others, are used in one of those drones? A company that builds desks for that drone-motor-company? And is this about all military things, or only those with offensive use, while e.g. a bunker-building company would be okay? What about a shoe manufacturer that sells to the army?
You'll quickly find that the agreement is largest while it's vague and gets smaller while you try to draw clearer lines.
At the same time, the more vague it is, the less will it be used because nobody wants to risk basing their things on something that depends on how a judge in some jurisdiciton understands some term.
It's not always that nobody cares or doesn't want to spend the energy on doing it, sometimes it's just really hard. You're welcome to give it a go, I'm sure all efforts are welcome in the field.
The issue isn't so much in "can you and some number of other people generally agree on what you want", it's in putting that in clear terms into a licence that a judge (or anybody, really) can read and clearly say who is and isn't in violation. And you'll want to do it in such a way that it's not open to interpretation, doesn't hinge on specific words etc, and preferably you'll do it under 100 pages. It is hard.
I believe that even agreement in what exactly you want isn't easy to achieve as the degrees of separation are hard to pin down. Plenty of people will agree to "no using this in drones that bomb people". Drones that only observe while other drones (or human-piloted jets) drop the bombs? Drones that aren't in the area but act as communication relays? A company that builds motors that, among others, are used in one of those drones? A company that builds desks for that drone-motor-company? And is this about all military things, or only those with offensive use, while e.g. a bunker-building company would be okay? What about a shoe manufacturer that sells to the army?
You'll quickly find that the agreement is largest while it's vague and gets smaller while you try to draw clearer lines.
At the same time, the more vague it is, the less will it be used because nobody wants to risk basing their things on something that depends on how a judge in some jurisdiciton understands some term.
It's not always that nobody cares or doesn't want to spend the energy on doing it, sometimes it's just really hard. You're welcome to give it a go, I'm sure all efforts are welcome in the field.