Open Source in the Military?

djmcmath asks: "Does anyone have any experience with Open Source Software and/or GPL'd software in military applications? I'm only asking because I'm involved in work on the combat systems for a new submarine, and had considered an Open Source solution. (I apologize, I must be intentionally vague for obvious reasons.) So ignore the obvious questions (Is it really suitable? Are closed-source proprietary options better? Does MS have a good solution?) and skip to the good stuff. What about the fact that my code would be classified Secret under US Code Umptifratz? I cannot distribute my code (and it's changes) without being tried for treason. What happens to the rest of the combat system code when I submit my GPL'd module?" Open Source and the Military: it's a tricky combination of keeping what can be open, open and keeping your secrets...well, secrets! However, open source in the military need not be as high profile as weapons systems. One of the only major OS projects that I'm aware of that had any form of military involvement was GRASS, the open-source GIS system. I'm sure there may be a few others out there. Does anyone know of other OS projects with military association? If there are any projects out there that interface with classified bits, how did you deal with those issues?

Comments

GLP and software availability

[Account 10]

You only need to distribute the source to the people that you distribute the binary to.

Presumably the binary is covered by the same secrecy rules as the source, so the only people entitled to the source are the miltary.

Although, if the binary is in a bomb, you may also need to distribute the source to the poor sod that you drop it on.

Re:GLP and software availability

[linzeal]

They could just include the source in a leaflet attached to the side of the bomb with a stern finger wagging RMS on it.

Re:GLP and software availability

[FattMattP]

Although, if the binary is in a bomb, you may also need to distribute the source to the poor sod that you drop it on.

That would only be necessary if he's going to execute the code. If the code is in a bomb, it's more likely that it's going to be executing him.

ksonar

[Innomi]

Imagine, a whole new suite of apps for KDE, ksonar ktorpedo kcmissile ...

Re:Avoid Microsoft...

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on editors, this deserves at least a 2, funny. That is of course unless you have absolutley no sense of humor! What's a matter with you? Geeze, just cuz you have to work on a Saturday doesn't mean the rest of us should pay for you being pissed off! Get a life monkey boys!

Re:GLP [sic] and software availability

[Anonymous Coward]

The point was:

If the bomb crashes and does not explode, and some people can extract the binary out of it, then these people can ask for the source code and get it.

Re:Almost FP

[JonWan]

"i wonder what happens to a sub with a gpf'ing OS running it's navegational system."

That could give yet another new meaning to "The Ping of Death"

Re:GPL

[anonymous_wombat]

The only practical implication is if the defense contractor wanted to sell the weapons system to other countries, but not give them the source.
Of course, the military has a lot of firepower, and Stallman doesn't have any, so it is probably a moot point.

Re:GLP [sic] and software availability

[innocent_white_lamb]

If the bomb crashes and does not explode, and some people can extract the binary out of it, then these people can ask for the source code and get it.

I don't think so. The intention of the bomb-dropper was not to provide the drop-ee with a copy of the binary included with the bomb. That would be like stating that if I broke into your office and stole a copy of the binary I could then walk in the front door and demand a copy of the source code.

Support?

[gehrehmee]

Open software is typically accompanied by open support. If the usage of your software is as secret as you make it sound, it might be really difficult to get technical support from the community in the same way civillian users might.

I finally got Linux 2.4.CLASSIFIED to work on my CLASSIFIED system, which required me to work around the CLASSIFIED component attached to the CLASSIFIED-CLASSIFIED. However, I'm still having some stability problems. Anybody see anything blatently wrong with this patch? :

--- /usr/local/src/linux/fs/devices.c Sat Sep 22 21:35:43 2001
+++ CLASSIFIED.c Sat Mar 16 14:32:35 2002
@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@

struct CLASSIFIED_struct {
const char * name;
- struct file_operations * fops;
+ struct string_operations * CLASSIFIED;
};

static CLASSIFIED_t CLASSIFIED_lock = RW_LOCK_UNLOCKED;
@@ -62,9 +62,9 @@
Load the CLASSIFIED if needed.
Increment the CLASSIFIED count of module in question.
*/
-static struct CLASSIFIED_operations * get_chrfops(unsigned int CLASSIFIED, unsigned int CLASSIFIED)
+static struct string_operations * get_chrfops(unsigned int CLASSIFIED, unsigned int CLASSIFIED)
{
- struct CLASSIFIED_operations *ret = NULL;
+ struct CLASSIFIED_operations *ret = NULL;

if (!CLASSIFIED || CLASSIFIED >= MAX_CHRDEV)
return NULL;
@@ -95,7 +95,7 @@
return ret;
}

The M-1 Tank is using open source software

[X]

The M-1 tank uses the Firebird database apparently. The military really liked the near-instant recovery from power failure (apparently the M-1 tank loses it's power every time it shoots it's main gun).

Re:Source Distribution

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you distributing your executables? If you use the OSS for a specific system and only on that system, you are not required to distribute source - everyone that has the binaries (the military) will have the source.

It's actually simpler than that -- this is the US -- therefore, you only need to say aloud one of two magic incantations, "National Security" or "For the love of God, will no one think of the children?" and debate is terminated. In your favor.

Re:License it?

[Spoing]

The downside to this, other than potentially having to track down every author is that you'd have to give the author a reason for wanting the license. That would probably compromise the security of the project, at least potentially. Even saying "the use will be classified" is probably too much information in some instances.

1. Govmnt guy: "We need to have a private copy of your software. Can we buy it?"

   Me: "Hmmm...OK." (Govmnt gives money, Me gives Govmnt new licence.)

   Me: "Do I have to claim this on my taxes?

   Govmnt guy: "Yessss."

   Me: "By the way, what are you going to do with your new software, anyway?"

   Govmnt guy: "It's classified."

   Me: "Oh, really?" (Govmnt guy hands over more money.)

Doesn't seem like a problem to me!