Slashdot Mirror
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?
I cannot distribute my code (and it's changes) without being tried for treason
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.
I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
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.
Couldn't the military, if it wanted to avoid the legalities and implications of the GPL, just license whatever code it wanted directly from the authors?
I'd say as long as you didn't specify what the program was beng used for specifically, there shouldn't be a problem.
.5% accuracy on this, not "The targetting for the ICBM needs to be .5% accurate", etc.)
(I.E., we need
Just my $.02.
JoeLinux
Imagine, a whole new suite of apps for KDE, ksonar ktorpedo kcmissile ...
It makes me doubt the veracity of your entire question. Here's what the constitution says about treason:
Article III:
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
I fail to see how software distibution could be considered treason. Has slashdot just been duped again?
A quote from the FAQ which I believe applies to your situation:
"The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization. But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the users, under the GPL. Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you."
Greg
To a shark, you are just another food choice...
The terms of the GPL simply state that if you sell a GPL product to a customer, you must provide the source to that customer.
Red Hat, Mandrake, and the like are being nice enough to provide iso images of their software for your download - they are not required to.
So what are the ramifications? Well, if the military sells your GPL solution to a 3rd country, they have to provide the source to that 3rd country, as well.
In other words, in this case, GPL (or no) makes no difference at all. GPL code can be "top secret" as long as the customer has full access to the code.
The idea of the GPL is that "If I bought it, I can do as I please with it - and if I sell it, so can whoever I sell it to..."
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
I actually have had to deal with this an the GPL really isn't your biggest concern, but first, let me address that.
The GPL is a set of licensing terms between the author and whomever he distributes the code to. If you are working directly with the Navy (unlikely) then writing and consuming the GPL code would pose no problem since your not distributing to anyone.
If you are working for a contractor, then it is a bit more hairy. You can still write the code GPL and distribute it to the Navy under the GPL. This of course gives the Navy whatever rights to the code so that they could redistribute it if they choose. It does not allow some guy in Florida to obtain secret info though. You would have to first give him a binary for him to have grounds to ask for the source and of course, classified source code produces classified binaries so this isn't an issue.
The real issue is QA. There are all sorts of processes (I know at least for Surface Systems) covering COTS verses in house software. Now, I spent a great deal of time working things out with QA and this is what we came up with when I first asked to use an OS library in a tactical program:
First, I had to vouch for the code. That meant I literally had to go through it line by line and make sure there were no possible backdoors in it. Also, if I modified more than a certain percentage of the library, then I was responsible for bringing that library up to in-house standards (which I'm sure you know is a real pain in the ass).
Don't worry about the licensing terms, they aren't going to be a sticking point likely. QA is what is going to kill you... (and it will only get worse if your program carries a higher classification).
int func(int a);
func((b += 3, b));
Perhaps he meant espionage - the release of state secrets to an enemy of the state.
I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
I'm not sure why the author of this question thinks that he'll get good advice from Ask Slashdot. The only reasonable response is "you should find an attorney with experience in intellectual property and national security laws and an appropriate security clearance to be told the complete story."
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.
"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"
Okay, so your little research into Article III makes you an expert over the person with DOD clearence (any level) who has filled out 15-30 pages of personal facts/history, who had to read another 50-100 pages of what to do/what not to do/possible punishments, and has their personal life investigated left and right (at their choice) to benefit our country?
Until you've been there and done it and know what it takes to get a clearence and what ramifications exist if you break the agreement, keep you opinions to yourself and go back to your text book. That is real world buddy.
I wonder if this is for the Virginia Class of mini-subs. These things are just so freaking cool. I'd give my right leg to have one of these things to ride around the Jersey shore in :)
int func(int a);
func((b += 3, b));
IANAL, however I did work in military intelligence and information security.
From what I understand, in this case, the government agency responsible for the code changes would be required to distribute those changes to any agency they distribute the binaries too... This should not, as I understand it, mean the individual users of the software.
For example, lets say the Navy sends copies of the binaries to Electric Boat(a sub manufacturer). They would be required to send the source to Electric boat as well.
However, in this case, it is Electric Boats IT department that is the receiver of the binary, NOT the electric boat employee who uses the software. Therefore, the source can legally be kept inside a safe at the CMCC(classified material control center), shown only to the IT department and others with an established need to know.
However, in any case, regardless of license, if the source changes reveal classified information it would be illegal to release them to the general public. I'd wager that even if that turned out to be a direct violation of the GPL, the classification side of the case would win in court.
With all that said, I would recommend you push for release of all source changes that do not reveal classified information. I realize that might not be much, but what you can, go for it.
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.
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.
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
If, however, these combat systems were to be _sold_ (or given away, though that's unlikely)
Selling military equipment is a multibillion dollar business. Where do you think we get all our cheap gas? We've been trading military technology for cheap oil in the mideast for ages.
Treason is an overstatement, but in his case, the penalties would be stiff, and could depending on the circumstances and who he distributes it to, could be considered treason. The non disclosure agreement sets penalties of 10 years and 10,000 dollars for EACH violation of the security regs. For example:
Classified fact a
classified fact b
classified fact c
classified fact d
classified fact e
If those were real classified facts, I could easily end up in jail for 50 years for this post.
It may not technically be treason, but it can be as severe and match the spirit of treason if not the letter of the definition.
"You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help" -- Calvin
Just a note on how military are involved on spreading the evil "specter" all over the world. Just one name that means all:
"TCP/IP"
It's open, clear and crystal like water. The whole world uses it. 90% of open/closed source network systems depend on it. It's open, it's readable. And it's ARPA...
What else is needed to talk about the military involvement? From start to end, many things done on computers are orginally military by their nature... First computers were created for military needs, let's not forget this. And today nearly everyone uses them. From Taco to Ben Laden...
-- Will program for bandwidth
I am a programmer in the USAF, and my squadron (for security reasons I cannot say what my unit does) uses OSS.
;-)
We use Samba for sharing printers between Windows NT and Solaris. We don't change the source code, but we do use OSS. I believe that we also use GCC for some things, because (and I am not 100% sure on this since I am not a sysadmin) I don't think Solaris comes with a C compiler. We also use DivX for... I could tell you but then I'd have to kill you
I've thought about this before because of our software licensing. Let's say Microsoft thinks they need a license audit. What's more important: maintaining our security by not allowing Microsoft access to sensitive computer systems, or complying with their "copyright" policies? If a computer is located in a secure area protected by federal classification law, who will know?
It goes both ways. The government could potentially abuse the GPL, but they could do the same to the draconian licensing terms in commercial software. It is my experience that the people in charge of acquiring systems will make sure their subordinates comply with the law. The higher-ups at my squadron stress that we must obey licensing laws because it's The Right Thing To Do.
I like open source software. I think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. But for some applications, such as classified computer systems, it may be best to stick to closed source if you need to change the open source software.
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
My company lists their open source projects here. No missile guidance systems, just stuff like virtual workspaces, and I haven't worked on any of these projects so I can't vouch for their quality/usefulness. But hey, if you're a US taxpayer you paid for them, so have at it.
I worked on a terrain database analysis tool, called ZCAP,
that was funded a few years back by U.S. Army STRICOM
and the Defense Modeling and Simulation Office
We distributed the application (and still do) in a complete package
that included a number of supporting free source applications, such as gnuplot
and tcl/tk. We handled the combination of free source, (no longer)export-restricted
software, and proprietarty libraries by loosely integrating
using system calls under a tk-based gui. Not very clean, but there
is a lot of good code in there, and I'm planning to gpl it in the near future.
Even if you sell it to someone else, you only have to make the code available to _those_who_buy_it_. You don't have to give it to the entire public just because you sell it to one person. What they do with it after they get it is up to them, though, and they may very well choose to give it away.
Good summary, but I think the point to keep in mind is that you end up having to envision a 'worst case scenario' which would indeed involve the first buyer merely redistributing everything for free.
creation science book
This is something that people don't realize. When you put something under the GPL, YOU say that ANYONE can use your software/code under the terms of it. But you CAN STILL make SEPARATE licenses to third parties which can be as restrictive or unrestrictive as you please.
However, if this GPLed code you speak of was written by somebody else, you're fucked unless you can get that person to re-license the code for you.
RTEMS (see http://www.rtems.army.mil) is a very nice real time OS that the military has open sourced with a very BSD like license that even mentions GPL (see http://www.rtems.army.mil/rg4/copyright.html)
:-)
As a side note I see that RTEMS stands for something new - perhaps I am having a 1984 experience but I seem to remember it used to stand for "Real Time Executive for Missile Systems"
Don't say the us military has not done anything for open source or I will be forced to mention Arpanet
Very good post. A large amount of free and open source code carries the stipulation that it will not be used by the military. You might find a good deal of the code you want to use carries this stipulation.
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).
sigs are a waste of space
If you can't release your source code, don't use the GPL.
:)
Why? Because a lot of us GPL fans are Buddhist, Pacifist, Hippie types!
Seriously... I don't want you using my software to help kill people.
But you can't under the GPL, stop anyone from using the software to do things you don't like, as long as they comply with the GPL. Open Source is about making software freely available - if you do that, you have to be willing to let people use it for things you may not like.
I have also talked to Stallman about putting a clause in the GPL about not using the GPL in military systems because of these concerns
Now your advocating clsoing the source to people whose world view conflicts with yours. Beyond teh difficulty in sorting out what would be limited and what wouldn't, since you can change the terms of another writer's license, why limit this to the military? Either the source is open and free to all, under the same terms, or it isn't. This gets real close to MS' FUD about viral code - all of a sudden you can't reffly use and distribute code you've created beacuse it incorporates someone else's more restrictive license.
If you want to limit your code's uses, write seperate modules that don't incorporate others code. Unfortunately, you cna't have things both ways Open Source and Restrictions on End Users.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
GPL is supposed to allow developers to give out their source code, without having to worry that someone else will change the code and not share their modifications.
I code for the army, and we're very clear that unless they truely don't mind Iraq getting a copy of their software, then it can't be based on GPL sources. If its GPL, then any developer, contractor, sysadmin, or random private who comes across the code can walk it right off the base, and no one can legally stop him.
(I suppose for some categories of software, the benefit to Iraq might be low enough that the Army truly wouldn't mind giving them a copy- especially if the hardware is permantently beyond their reach)
Wouldn't that fall under giving them aid and comfort? Giving the ennemy vital information (such as the source code of weapons control systems) sure helps (aids) them, doesn't it?
Say no to software patents.
Learn this and learn it well:
it's == it is
its == the possessive version of it
The word 'its' is a possessive pronoun (its, yours, hers, his, theirs) as opposed to a possessive noun and therefore does not follow the rules set out in Bob's Quick Guide To The Apostrophe, You Idiots. </grammar police>
I have also talked to Stallman about putting a clause in the GPL about not using the GPL in military systems because of these concerns. I don't know if it is possible. What about the Coast Guard? What UN peace keeping troops?
That is the most blatanyly ignorant thing I've ever heard. Killing people is wrong - but suggesting to ban GPL software from the military is stupid. The military is not inherently 'evil', its _use_ might be evil. Do you really think that all those hundreds of thousands of German soldiers in WW2 were evil, or just doing what their American counterparts did - support their country. Sometimes killing people saves even more lives in the end. That's a fact of life.
By your logic, while, we're at it, we might as well ban companies from using Linux (oops, GNU/Linux), because God knows, RJ Reynolds might get a hold of it, and we can't have cigarette making companies using GNU Software, because they kill people to.
Oh, might as well ban non-Americans from using the GPL too, because damnit, unless those Iraqis get some common sense and get rid of Saddam, they're helping to kill people to.
What if GPL software was used in some embedded system that terrorists are using? What are you going to do now? Somebody call TiVo and let them know that Osama is using their custom GNU/Linux software to watch Friends!
Firstly, just because "a lot" of GPL fans are pacifists or hippies or whatever doesn't give you the right to tell someone whether or not they can use the GPL for their software. That's like telling someone they're not allowed to listen to certain types of music because they listen to it in a way that you think is wrong. We want MORE people to adopt the GPL, not fewer.
Second, what do you mean by the statement "I don't want you using my software..."? The software which he creates, GPL or no GPL, is still the intellectual property of him, or in this case, his employer (the military). It's not "your software", and therefore you clearly have no say in how it should be used, or any claims to ownership of it.
Third, a "no military applications" clause in the GPL would probably be a Very Bad Idea(TM) for reasons many Slashdot posters can probably agree with me on - one of which you mention in your own post, it would affect peacekeeping forces as well. It would probably also have a negative (limited, but negative) effect on spread of open source. Also, there's really nothing keeping someone else from coming up with a modified GPL which doesn't have that clause, and call it MPL or whatever. I would certainly stop using the GPL if such a change occured, I don't mind if the US military uses my free software, I'd consider it an honour (and I'm not even a US citizen).
Peace is fine, what about freedom?
Quality, performance, value; you get only two, and you don't always get to pick.
That brings up the question of embedded devices in general, e.g. what if the binary is in night vision goggles or a satellite radio issued to troops? They presumably can't be given the classified source code. I discussed embedded devices with RMS a long time ago and back then, he seemed to think it was technically a GPL violation, but if the code in the device can't be changed (i.e. it's in ROM) then it didn't really count as software, so he wasn't too worried. At that time, embedded CPU's weren't so ubiquitous and those that existed were mostly tiny and didn't run much GPL'd code. It might be time for a more formal policy on stuff like this.
Of course, the GPL'd code owner can always grant GPL exemptions for specific purposes (the GPL itself has a clause saying this and I think the FSF has given a few exemptions in the past), so the surest way to be in good standing is if you can get permission from the owner.
Disclaimer: IANAL and I don't speak for the FSF.
I remember Cygnus used to advertise that this big Navy software system was built using GNU tools because the Navy decided that Microsoft stuff wasn't reliable enough. Of course that refers to the compilers etc. and I'm not sure if the resulting Navy software contained GPL code itself. However it shows there's already nontrivial military use of GPL'd software.
... implement some sort of "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy for this whole "Open in the military" issue.
sic transit gloria mundi
Seems that this is a somewhat stupid question. Even if classified work is done by a contractor, and sold to the government as work-for-hire, the contractor is the only one required to provide the source code to anyone, and then, only to the group to whom they give the executable - the government. So, as long as they wouldn't give the executable to anyone else, the GPL is obeyed. And quite honestly, if a contractor provides classified software to anyone except the government, under government blessing, they'll have bigger problems than a GPL violation.
Go ahead, use GPL'd software in whatever you like. Unless the government plans to sell the software to anyone else later, you're completly within the bounds of the license. Nowhere does the GPL say "if you give this software to someone, you have to provide it to the world." It simply says that "if you give someone this software, you have to give them the means to modify it."
--
Just lurking, thanks!
Really? Which "enemy" did he aid? (No, aiding the Republicans by his foolish behavior doesn't count. In the context of this article, enemy means "military enemy", not "political opponent").
Agreed, but for perjury, not for treason.
Say no to software patents.
Ah, yes, but the Bomb Drop Initiator did give the aforementioned Bomb to the Bomb Drop Recipient of his or her own free will. The BDI did not absolutely have to give it to the BDR, but since they did, then the BDR is entitled to the source code. The BDR did not steal the bomb, but probably rather just stood there asking for it.
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
Maybe you should ask your Project Manager or Government Contract Manager. They are required to understand what you can and can't use, particularly when the project is classified.
Unless things have changes a lot in the past couple years, I suspect you won't be able to use any open source software. Even if you can, you should check with your Project Manager and your Government Contract Manager before you make that decision for yourself - it could cost you more than your job.
"All I ever wanted was to see Larry Wall give Bill Gates a Perl necklace."
http://www.eisenschmidt.org/jweisen
First off, run, do not walk, do not pass go, straight to the base/department legal department. Do not attempt to do ANYTHING until they OK it - the regulations surrounding secret-level work are inordinately hairy and convoluted, and only a lawyer specialized in classified-work law can answer your question definitively.
The other note, which is useful when discussing this with aforementioned lawyer: any work done under a Classified label (or higher) has different rules than "normal" work. Basically, any license that gets applied to the code only applies to those with a clearance at least as high as the code was written. Thus, if your code is Classified, I don't care if it has the BSD license, GPL, Bob's SuperFree License, or whatnot. Anyone without a Classified clearance isn't entitled to see it. Period.
This is a case where the murky grounds of National Security trumps Copyright (and other Intellectual Property) law. The law still holds, but it's restricted to the circle of security it's at.
National Security law basically allows you to use anybody else's code, provide you compensate them in a just and reasonable manner. As far as I've experienced, this means that you have to pay them the basic asking price on the free (i.e non-classified) market, and they don't get to say "no, you can't use it". For GPL/BSD/Open Source licenses, the asking price is Free, so well, they've been "compensated" as they've normally would.
In this case, Classifed work can certainly suck in Open Source code and not release it until it gets unClassified. And, as a side note, there is no "leaking" - people are not entitled to distribute code to non-cleared people, so it's not like Trade Secrets. It stays locked up until it's declassfied.
-Erik
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
Many DARPA projects are done in cooperation with universities and many of the software supporting them end up as OSS.
Here's a list of DARPA research areas, tying in to projects. I know MIT's project oxygen has helped a lot in the world of linux on handhelds.
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess? - Joshua (Wargames)
I hereby declare that I and everyone I know form a conglomerate "organization", and as such we will only be purchasing copyrighted material collectively in the future. Because we will only be redistributing this material within our own organization, and not to anyone outside it, we should be exempt from copyright restrictions, right?
Let me get this straight, you work on a system that is designed to kill yet you worry about the copyright law?
You're missing an important distinction here. The GPL limits what restrictions (none) you can place on redistribution of source code as a term of the license CONTRACT.
Security classifications, in contrast, are a matter of LAW.
This is an important distinction that comes up periodically. E.g., there's a fair amount of software that is used to control the operation of amateur radio station equipment. The licenses inevitably require that the user have suitable FCC (or local equivalent) certification suitable for the operation of this equipment, probably due to FCC regulations. Does this violate the GPL? I would argue it doesn't - it's the FCC that requires a license to operate the equipment, not the author, and the sole purpose of this restriction is to limit the author's liability in those cases when the receiver acts in bad faith.
Ditto the occasional licenses that require the receiver be old enough to enter into a binding contract. Of course it's silly to say that a 17-year-old can't make valuable contributions, but the law says that contracts with 17-year-olds are never binding except for some relatively rare circumstances. (E.g., they can be emanicpated by a court, by enlistment in the military, or by marriage. Or it could be a "necessity" such as a contract for housing.)
I think the same argument can be made here. Are you willing to make the source code available to any agency legally entitled to view it? If so, then I think you can still use the GPL.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Its YOUR military that has protected your rights and freedoms every day since your conception.
.NEQ. Bad</b>
Would I like to see World Peace? Sure. I think it would be best for all involved. HOWEVER, it was the military that put an end to scum like Hitler and hopefully Bin Laden. You mis-spoke on the biggest mass murder in the world, it was a toss up between Stalin and Hitler. I suggest you stop in at the Holocaust Memorial next time you visit Washington D.C. to protest something. Maybe it'll open your eyes.
As for your point of OSS being international, then that means that scum like Bin Laden and Sadaam can use OSS against the US. All's fair in love and war chief.
So, next time you take a moment to release yourself from hugging your tree and open your mouth, engage your brain.
<b>Military
As for the original article, maybe you might want to investigate the BSD's.
What's my Karma Mr. Burns? "Excellent"
This is a CAD suite developed and used by the U.S. Army's Ballistics Research Lab. See http://ftp.arl.mil/brlcad for more information. It isn't fully Open Source for a number of reasons, but they do distribute the source code free of charge. (You can modify it, but not redistribute it.) Top secret components/add-ons are compiled separately, and of course are not available to the public.
If nothing else, maybe the BRLCAD developers can answer some of your questions.
-Sam
I've had network patches from interesting places. I've done work with bodies that wouldn't even tell me what they were using Linux for.
Linux is already used for signal descrambling, SToW (Simulated Theatre of War) and a large number of other things, many of which mere mortals are never likely to discover until thirty years on.
I get kernel fixes from such people, optimisations from such people and so forth, but I've yet to see any GPL'd nuclear attack management tools and I guess those won't be GPL 8)
Open Source is an act of love. Influencing people by killing them and destroying their property is an act of hate, or at least socially backward behavior.
I think the haters should contact the lovers to see if the lovers want their software used for an alternative purpose.
Bush's education improvements were
...to a proprietary OS. There are several good ones that make this arrangement easy and cost effective. (Yes, I work on making one, assume I'm plugging it.) You can then know exactly what's in your OS, hack on it to your heart's content, and maybe even get some good support for it.
Start Running Better Polls
; )
.
I purchased OpenBSD from 2.5 to 2.8, until I suddenly became too poor to pay 50 Aussie bucks for the official CD's and found out how easy it is to make my own bootable OpenBSD CD's for just what I need...
If you want x86, then just download it from the OpenBSD ftp site.
wget -r ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/3.0/i386/ Makes it easy.
Once thats done...
cd ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD,
then...
mkisofs -v -r -l -L -T -J -V "OpenBSD-3.0" -A "OpenBSD v3.0-Release, Custom ISO, 17-03-2002." -b 3.0/i386/cdrom30.fs -c boot.catalog -o openbsd-i386-3.0.iso -x openbsd-i386-3.0.iso
Burn that ISO!
Now though, I'm no longer terribly poor and want more than just x86 (I want x86, Sparc64 and Alpha), so I'll be buying lots more official CD sets and T-Shirts.
War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
This is a tough question to answer as I am not sure what exactly you are looking for. Because you are using open source development tools, it does NOT mean you have to distribute those changes to the rest of the world or release ANY of your source code or binaries. In fact, if you are using open source code, my understanding of many open source licenses is that you are only required to release the code to those that you distribute the binaries to. This may mean your defense contractor or the DOD or Dept. of the Navy. The tricky issue is the source code could (probably will be) actually be considered more classified than the binaries.
Open source can certainly save you development time/money, but its application should depend upon its use and how it will integrate into the rest of the combat control system. For instance, how was Cluster Knave (Macintosh based submarine imagery system) integrated into command, control and combat? I don't know the answer to that one by the way. (Is Cluster Knave still around by the way? Anyone?)
Will this software integrate/interface with the outside world at all? Obscurity is your friend here and one of the reasons the NSA makes their own stuff. (rolling their own) But this certainly depends upon other systems and their requirements.
As for distributing ANY of your code, assuming you are working on anything with collateral clearance or higher, you would be under investigation PDQ. Especially given the current climate with lots of things going back into classification and security in many programs being looked at hard. Open source ideals aside, do not decide to use open source solutions for classified work if you would like to contribute back to the community. This would be a major career mistake. For classified work, use open source if it will help get the job done better/faster.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Further back
- The DoD needed a way to keep an infrastructure going during and after a war. Blah Blah Blah, arpanet was born.
-
They needed Operating Systems for it to run on - prefererably something not closed and owned by IBM, DEC, Prime, etc.
Many many tools that are "just there" are there because they were developed under public grants - often not the point of the research, just tools developed in the processes of doing the work. If I develop CoolTool(TM) while being paid by taxes to do something, I can't just sell CoolTool. Frankly, often it was put out because "here was something handy and I want it to keep going but am moving on."They ended up funding a lot of the development of young Unix
(GnuPlot came from Dartmouth after being written to plot data under a weather grant or something)
My point is that Open Source and the gub'mint (esp the DoD and military) have a long history together. The fact that free software is auditable and readable is often mandatory - especially for systems that will never get third party support.
No licenses I've glanced at have ever said "If you make changes for your own use, you must give them back." If this ends up being sold one day (and many military technologies (besides Tang) HAVE made it back into the civilian world), then you may have issues.
It is the same military money that lets you post your little message. The Internet was funded by DARPA(Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, an agency of the DOD). And the US is the primary defender of whats right and good in the world, so bite me. Good luck in finding out if we are using your stuff in weapon systems, because you do not have the need to know. Because I will use whatever I can to make sure that US Sailors come home again.
Ok, I got a little curious when this guy started mentioning "US Code Umptifratz" and after searching with google I couldn't find any reference to "Umptifratz" that relates to US law. In fact, only 2 search results came up. Could this guy be jerking our collective chain?
He was quoted out of context, what he meant was that the comments have no financial value. He's down with the community, just like everyone else is.
[o]_O