Slashdot Mirror
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."
Before you mark me as a troll, here me out.
The "Sincere Choice" group (Bruce Perens et al) are pushing for greater adoption of Open Source. "Software Choice" is (as far as I can tell) pushing for, what appears to be, the best solution for the problem - irrespective of it's licence.
This, to me, seems to be the most sensible thing. You don't go and purchase a TV, Video or DVD system without doing the research and finding out what suits you. You look at the facts, you look at what you want and you pick what is best for the situation.
So, if a closed source solution is the best one, then hell why can't they go for it? I don't know many people who deliberately pick an inferior product unless they have very strong moral or cash-flow problems.
Sure, people will point out that people should be using open file formats, the ability to look at the code and the freedom (as in speech) of it all.
They are right. But even when you apply the ideals of Software Choice to Open Source - it should (unless it's really really appallingly bad) still come out smelling sweeter BECAUSE OF THESE VERY FREEDOMS THAT IT GIVES.
I was always told, use the best tool for the job. If OSS advocates are getting worried about a group of companies advocating picking the best tool for the job, then I would like to know what they're worried about. OSS stuff should be able to stand up to this sort of criteria.
If a product still looks crap (even after all the benefits that come with OSS licencing) against something closed and propriatory, then maybe it's time to realise that it quite well could be crap?
(if of course, Software Choice have changed their tack - then feel free to mod me into oblivion)
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
FUD: You have to open up all your code if you use GPL code in your software.
Fact: You have to open up all your code if you use GPL code in your software and then distribute it!
I don't think the DoD distributes very much of the software it writes, so why should it care if it uses GPL code? It shouldn't care! But let the FUD fly!
This bring up a question I've asked before and no one seems to have a conclusive answer for. Technically, by the GPL rules, anyone who gets the binary has to be able to get the source. Now the DoD employees are certainly getting the binary, so they should have access to the source as well, correct? And if they have access to the source, the GPL gives them full legal rights to redistribute it as they want, correct? So the problem seems to be that any DoD employee can legally distribute the code if they want (there may be other rules that apply, such as NDAs and things like that, but based just on the GPL). This seems to be a big hole to worry about, since it would put the DoD on possible shaky ground if an employee did release the software (it would be the rights the GPL gives you versus the NDA or other constricting contract).
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
I want to blow the whistle on these people really badly, just for matter of principle, and also because of a bit of revenge towards an arrogant vendor who doesn't understand the "customer is always right" principle and who has lied to us on numerous occasions and repeatedly refuses to follow our instructions and many of the terms of the contract. I think I'm going to wait until the project is complete and the system is in full production use before suddenly discovering this GPL license breach and blowing the whistle to the FSF. I think it will hurt the evil vendor the most then. Anyone have any further comments or advice here
Whast you are talking about, is the GNU's version of piracy. (kinda ironic, isn't it?) After so many slashdotters fight tooth and nail for the right to "pirate" proprietary software, I fail to see why anyone should even care.
How ironic that Cisco relies on OpenBSD, an open source operating system, as the embedded os in their routers. Might as well let the cat out of the bag, the greedy scum who pretend to run that company have no problem grabbing up open sourcecode for their own benefit, but don't want anyone else to be able to do so. Competition you know. To the management of Cisco, you liars can shove it.