Software Choice Group Tells DOD Not to Use Open Source

ducomputergeek writes "A group calling themselves the Initiative for Software Choice, backed by Microsoft and others, is recommending that the DOD drop plans for further adoption of Open Source software. This comes after MITRE, a defense contractor, published a report stating that not only does the Department of Defense use opensource, but is recommend on using it more. The article is at News.com and you can read it here."

Comments

I work for the DoD...

[ZeLonewolf]

I work for the DoD, in a branch that plans technology policy for various projects. Over the last 5-10 years, the push for "Open Standards Architecture" (OSA) has been at the forefront. It's the stated policy of the DoD, which comes from the mouth of a former Secretary of Defense, to push for open standards, open interfaces, and in general to be as far from proprietary as possible. Proprietary software means more expense for the government due to non-competition, and it also puts the government in the hands of a private corporation.

Open Source, while not specifically targeted by the DoD, is the next logical step. Although the previous generation of nuclear submarines ran HP-UX, the next generation (due to be delivered starting 2006) will run about half Solaris, half Linux. So yes, open source is on the way in in the government. Slightly off-topic, but if you want a good example of why proprietary software is no good for mission-critical work, look up on Google the problems the USS Yorktown had with Windows NT about 5 years ago...

Re:I work for the DoD...

[IamTheRealMike]

As a possibly interesting aside, I work for QinetiQ, the newly privatized DERA which was UK Military of Defense research. They do a lot of consulting for the MoD and the government. About a year or two ago they produced a report which was the definitive report for the UK government on open source.

It was very positive. I don't know if it was ever made public (I don't see why it wouldn't be) but I have a copy at home, and it made for pleasant reading. And here at work, Linux and open source is everywhere. When I was doing a demo of my project about a week ago, as I demoed it my boss was talking and he said "Oh yes, this is all done using only open source and free software" which got lots of approval from the customers and other project managers etc (in fact my brief was, do it with open source if possible). My boss uses windows but with cygwin and the Gimp. There are several Linux workstations in my small dept alone. They are big into open source here. This reflects into the next generation of technologies for the military

I think it must just be a government/civil service thing, but they seem to have a soft side for it. One thing I do think is dumb is that if the US DoD has made up its mind on open source that Microsoft amongst others should be telling them they are wrong, and denying choice. Uh, what? So people can no longer choose products based on what they think, in case it's "discrimination" or something? Hmmm.

Re:GPL FUD again?

[deander2]

It's important to make clear the difference between:
1) using OSS code in your software
2) using OSS code to write your software, or to deploy your software, or to distribute your software, or to hang your software out to dry on your clothesline, etc...

Only #1 requires you to make your software open source.

(btw, I work as a contractor for the DOD. we do #2 constantly, and I can promise you it's the much more common activity)

Re:Interesting choice of words

[ZeLonewolf]

I work for the DoD, in a technology policy branch.

Not only is proprietary softare inherently insecure, it's inherently more expensive, inherently doesn't work as well, and inherently causes the government to be screwed if the company goes out of business or decides to stop supporting the software. In fact, the government got screwed by using HP-UX when HP decided not to make new versions of the OS backwards-compatible with the older HP processors being used in most of our submarines...now, wisely, half of the computers in the NEXT generation of subs are running Linux (the rest are running Solaris...)

MITRE Is Not Just Another Contractor

[John Hasler]

> This comes after MITRE, a defense contractor,
> published a report stating that not only does the
> Department of Defense use opensource, but is
> recommend on using it more.

MITRE is one hell of a lot more than just another defense contractor. Look into it's history and you'll see that DoD will value its opinion far above that of some Microsoft lobbiest.

DoD Security Policy 8500.1

[xiitone]

DoDD 8500.1, *the* authoritative overarching DoD document concerning Computer Security contains this paragraph:

Public domain software products, and other software products with limited or no warranty, such as those commonly known as freeware or shareware, shall only be used in DoD information systems to meet compelling operational requirements. Such products shall be thoroughly assessed for risk and accepted for use by the responsible DAA.

The part that I wonder about is "other software products with limited or no warranty, such as those commonly known as freeware or shareware". I wonder if this was meant to indicate Open Source Software? IANAL, but I've never seen a EULA for software that didn't indicate a limited warranty. In fact, from my layman's point of view, all the standard EULAs seem to indicate that the software has no warranty, since they seem to claim that the software doesn't have to do anything at all...