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

My take

[Mr_Silver]

I support what Software Choice are saying.

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)

Re:GPL FUD again?

[dirk]

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).