Government Funds Secret Sustainable Computing

SEWilco writes "OSDN's NewsForge reports that Carnegie Mellon University has started a Sustainable Computing Consortium to improve the quality and security of software. The only news release is that NASA gave CMU $23 million to help create dependable software. SCC members get an internal-use license for SCC software. So taxpayers are paying millions to create proprietary software, and companies get access for a few thousand dollars. (There is some blurring between CMU's SCC and CMU's High Dependability Computing Consortium, although HDCC's web site has been idle for a year.)"

Comments

Free the software

[jhoger]

Non-classified government funded software should be Free for public use, I guess is the point here. Are there any ongoing lobbying efforts to this effect?

Re:Free the software

[SEWilco]

Uh... If the government produces software which is better than what your company has, your competitors can buy it for a few thousand dollars. Government does want research and side effects made available (the term is "technology transfer) because otherwise it is wasted. [insert favorite NASA tech examples such as moon buggy rubber allowing winter radial tires]

Any of your competitors will have it. Your company should also buy a copy, so you can use its improvements in your product and keep ahead of the competition.

Making the software available free just means that many small businesses and freelancers can browse and get inspiration from it. And most businesses are small businesses, with the occasional big company arising from them.

And so it goes

[tchdab1]

>>So taxpayers are paying millions to create proprietary software, and companies get access for a few thousand dollars.

I hope this is not trollish, but there has been a lot of this going around for quite some time; indeed, it's how the world works in the domestic USA. Pharmaceutical (sp?) funding gets Gov. grants for the coarse, laborious, and often empty research, and then hands over any promising results for free to Merck and others for development into actual drugs. Universities do lots of basic research that then, when promising, can be used by manufacturers, and if classified will even be denied to you and I.
Now you can argue that these results help fuel the economy, but you can also argue that the marketplace should be charging for the information developed at the expense of the funders.

Hey, it's only our money. What's on TV?

Public funds should equal public source.

[rushfan]

If the software is written using public funds (i.e. my tax dollars are paying for this), then the resulting software should be publically available. Either under a GPL type license or under a BSD sytle license (with a BSD license, then even companies could incorporate the publically funded technology into their products to sell, sorta giving them something back for their tax dollars). Either way, if we paid [taxes] for it, then it should be available to us.

Maybe we could get a bill passed that states all software not written for national security that is paid for by taxes should be open to the tax payers. Just a thought.

So what happens when...

[csguy314]

stuff from the FSF is still around in a few decades, and their stuff has been completely rewritten 100 times?
Maybe then they'll realize what sustainable means...
nahh....

Where is the problem here?

[jimmcq]

So NASA needs some Sustainable Computing and they spent $23million of their budget to get it. Where is the problem here?

Is this trying to imply that all NASA software should be free?

Re:Where is the problem here?

[startled]

"So NASA needs some Sustainable Computing and they spent $23million of their budget to get it. Where is the problem here?"

We give gov money. Gov gives NASA money. NASA gives SCC money. SCC develops cool software, and gives businesses a great deal on it.

Well, if corps were the only ones paying taxes, no problem. But I pay taxes, too. And here's what they claim Sustainable Computing is supposed to do:
The environment we characterize as sustainable computing is one in which:
Software is developed with quality, dependability and security in mind from inception, and these attributes can be accurately measured and validated
Software is resilient in the face of unexpected challenges; and
Developers, users, and policymakers interact based on fairness, precision, and a shared interest in the vitality and competitiveness of the software industry.

Sounds totally sweet. Sounds useful for everyone. Why not open it up?

"Is this trying to imply that all NASA software should be free?"

That argument could be made, but this is a much simpler argument. I don't want to quibble about hardware-specific software for some hacked-together satellite. The question is, should we open up broadly useful software to the people who paid for it? I say: why not? Hell, make it free for commercial use. Here's the SCC's argument again: "Recent estimates suggest that defective software accounted for 45% of computer downtime and cost U.S. companies over $100 billion annually".

Okay. They claim it's very important to the entire U.S.. Well guess who paid for it: that's right, everyone. So give it to us already! I could care less about some hardware-specific code for some hacked-together satellite; quibble about that amongst yourselves. But "improvements in software quality and security" would benefit everyone. If they're not going to hand it out for free, cut out the corporate welfare and make them develop their own damned software-- maybe then these things would get developed in the private sector, and NASA could get it a hell of a lot cheaper.

I actually serve on the committee

[quinto2000]

That is currently reviewing Carnegie Mellon's restricted research policy. I'll bring this up. Just so that you all know, this research must be with one of CMU's "semi-autonomous units," and no students are participating in the research, otherwise it could not have cleared our Provost. At any rate, this is interesting information to have.