Slashdot Mirror
Government-Funded GPL Software
tgw writes "Tom Adelstein has an article in 'Linux Journal' on how a major milestone in US government-funded OSS recently passed - virtually unnoticed." Slashdot has mentioned this company earlier.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Yes but how long before various forces demand DRM of varying forms be put in GNU software? Once the government gets involved then the people that control the government do as well.
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
I think that all publicly funded software (except that with a security concern) should be released under the GPL. The people paid to have it made, the people should be the ones to benefit from it.
The preceding message was based on actual events. Only the names, locations and events have been changed.
or is it inexpressibly sad that this ISN'T a no-brainer? That so many people apparently have no problem with the government taking our tax money and using it to fund projects that never see the light of day? Whatever the government uses my money for, unless releasing it endangers national security, it SHOULD be released for the public to use. We paid for it, after all. And the private sector can undoubtedly come up with applications for it the government didn't think of. Everybody wins.
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
Govt should fund open source SW, as closed source SW vendors will use their power and money to create laws that will close down OSS. That is really the blind spot of libertarians, free traders, etc--they fail to see to see how the so-called "free maeket" is really just a license to allow wealthy entities (e.g., corporations, etc) to manipulate and control lesser entities (i.e., all the rest of us so-called "humans".) If we want an increasingly high standard of living, then we have to engineer a government that will give it to us. Govt is just a machine. Designing machines has NEVER been easy. There aint no such as a free lunch, and a free market is certainly no free lunch, although it comes pretty close to that for corporations and the wealthy and upper income class.
Homo Sapiens Americanus--A documentary in p
If you take the position that software is a natural monopoly like the phone company used to be, then it only makes sense that it should be socialized rather than trying to regulate it into behaving (like they used to try to do with the phone company).
I wonder if the government would be willing to give a tax credit to programmers who submit bug-fixes or enhancements to their OSS software?
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
freewrl might be though!!
freewrl
freewrl has been funded by the canadian government for a few years now
back in the day we didnt have no old school
The best thing about the GPL is that it's simply not possible for a company to then exploit it without giving some benefit back to the people who paid for it. (And yes, I understand that companies pay taxes too). For example, the GPL prevents small, meaningless changes which simply change protocols without adding value.
Suppose you're a government funded researcher who produces some nice chat software which is placed into the public domain. What can stop AOL, which is a huge and influential company, from making a slight change to that software and then bundling it with AOL 10? If they bundle their new, incompatible chat software, they create a huge user-base without contributing anything. They could then leave it at that, or charge non-AOLers $10 if they want to be able to chat with their customers. You might argue that this is a good thing, but I think it's doubtful. And this approach isn't available to anyone except big SW companies.
Far better to use the GPL. If AOL wants to use the SW they paid for, they can do so. If they want to improve it, they can do that too, but they must distribute their source, so they can't create a huge "incompatibilty-hole" amongst the people who originally paid to produce the software.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
Anyways, here is MS's Annual Report which seems to state they paid nearly $5 billion in income taxes. Maybe you don't think $5 billion is that much, in which case can I borrow $20?
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
I have to say I found the article lacking on a couple key points.
/. say why they think its a good idea but I have no idea what reasons the USG thinks.
First, since DevIS owned the copyright they could have released it as GPL. Why donate it the USG at all, especially if it cost them $20k to do so?
Second, once the USG had the copyright, why was it licensed under the GPL. What interest does the government find served by having the code under GPL? Specifically, since USG info is usually public domain why not release it as that? I have heard plenty of people on
It sounds like the Open Source Industry Alliance wants to be able to say that the USG owns a piece of GPL'd code. Maybe that's good, maybe there's a strategy, but I can't tell from the article.
Yet another blind GPL fan boy.
And this is a bad thing why? What is so inherently evil about businesses that they shouldn't be allowed to use a business model that uses some code developed by the government and then freely released to all? If they wish, they can take that public domain code, make changes, and release it GPL if they wish. You have the same option. Of course, the public domain code would always be public domain, and thus entirely free; nothing can change that.
The one and only purpose of the GPL is to ensure that derivative works (plugins, models and the like) get an open source license (in this case the GPL). Is netcat any less free because it's public domain? Is OpenBSD any less free because it's licensed under a BSD license that allows companies to make derivative works and indeed distribute the original code in a binary only license?
There's a half truth going around about the GPL being viral and somehow infecting code you don't want to. We all know that's bull, but it's based in this truth. If you want to base a product on GPL code, you have to release any of your additions and modifications under the GPL as well, meaning you are giving away your code to the public. That's the price you knowingly pay up front for using GPL code (thus it isn't viral since you choose to use the available code, but later don't want to pay the price).
If tas payers fund a government body that creates some code, why should they use a license that requires that anyone else release their changes freely? Did not those corporations that might want to use the code pay taxes as well? Public domain is the fairest way for everyone to play ball.
Slackware, what else when it must be secure, stable, and easy?
The GNU General Public License (GPL) was written years before there was an "open source" movement. Linking together the open source movement with the GPL misstates history and authorship. The language used in the GPL and the freedoms it talks about are not part of the philosophy of the open source movement, they are part of the free software movement which created the free software community we still enjoy today 20 years later. The real author of the GPL is the FSF (most notably, Richard Stallman and Eben Moglen). In a post to the GCC mailing list responding to someone who wanted to help the "open source community", RMS said
ESR would similarly miscredit the open source movement when he referred to a number of programs as "open-source" projects even though they were written before that movement existed:
Maybe the authors of the various BSD OSes and the authors of the Linux kernal don't mind being lumped in with that movement, but ESR also includes Emacs which was co-written by RMS, founder of the free software movement. Emacs was most certainly not written with the open source movement in mind nor to benefit those ideals. Emacs was written to benefit the free software movement. RMS has repeatedly stated how he does not want to be lumped in with the open source movement. The FSF provides a concise and informative description of the differences between the two movements which includes RMS asking the reader to know enough about the movements to distinguish between their philosophies.
So what did the open source movement do? The Open Source Initiative placed the GPL on a list of approved licenses. Open source advocates have contributed to practical projects and endorsed the GPL. I'm sure the free software advocates have no issue with endorsing the GPL and increasing its use. But the reason this license protects ones freedoms to share and modify software so well is not due to anything anyone at the OSI or the open source movement has done. Thus it is not fair for that movement to receive credit for the GPL.
Digital Citizen
OK, analogies are always dangerous. But, note that you mention trucking companies that profit from *using* roads, not from *charging* others for using roads. GPL software is exactly like that. Any company may profit from using GPL software, but they may be restricted in getting profit from charging other people for using that software.
"And the GPL is what makes sure that it will stay in the public domain."
No, the GPL ensures that it is *not* in the public domain, but that enhancements *are* covered by the GPL. The government should choose between public domain and a GPL style license on a case-by-case basis.
If a government funds the from-scratch development of a project there may be no reason to release under GPL, or BSD for that matter. Whatever rights are granted to the software should be granted only to the taxpayers. I'm not interested in funding the development of other nations, especially these days.
If you actually attempt to download the software you get a registration page that reads:
.GOV site but is this ok with the GPL?
Workforce ConnectionsTM Source and Installation Download
In order to download the complete Workforce ConnectionsTM source code and installation software, you must provide your information including a valid email address. The password to enable you to download the files will be sent to that email. Please provide the following information.
I'm glad to see GPL software on a
Suppose that the software is available as public domain and a company sells a derivative. Then the people who pay for that are paying for the additions made by that company. You are free to use the costless, public domain version if you don't agree with that bargain and I think that many people will (unless the additions in the closed sourced versions are very compelling, in which case the additions seem to very valuable, and the company deserves to be paid for that).
What I don't understand is how people and the government lose money in all this. If you don't want to pay for a closed source derivative, then you are free to create an open source alternative or use the public domain version. If you believe that the derivative is valuable to spend money on (presumely, because it saves you more money than you have to spend on it), then you don't lose money there either. On the contrary, a rational Homo Economicus will only spend money to earn more, so he would actually make money.
I'll stick to the FSF on this: GPL gives better protection, unless there is a specific reason to opt for LGPL or public domain.
You may make this choice for your own software, but you should realize it is a quid pro quo. You spend your time to create software and in return you expect people to 'pay' you with the changes they make themselves. You don't actually give away your software in the sense that you don't expect anything in return. It is different for software created by the government. That software has been fully paid for and the government shouldn't expect people to 'pay' again, since many of the people who paid taxes don't want that (programmers who program open source software under a different license than the GPL or who program closed source software). In reality, GPL source code will be unusable by those groups of programmers, which means they pay taxes for something they cannot use.
GPL then would be better for government
That would depend on what their aim is:
- If they want to stimulate the economy, then public domain is probably the best choice (since more people can use it and save money). And unlike the standard handouts to (big) coorporations, this one actually benefits small business and individuals as well.
- If the goverment wants bug-fixes, then public domain (more eyes) is probably the best choice.
- If they want to have more features added, then it's unclear. I don't think there has been any research into the amount of (valuable) code that is returned with different licenses. The GPL forces the return of code, but the public domain results in more users and my gut feeling is that willing contributions will generally be much more valuable than 'forced' contributions.
So in the end, the public domain may well be better for the government than the GPL.The GPL is about taking some freedom away from the developer, and giving it to the used, based on the fact that there are more users than developers, so it increases the net amount of freedom. The developer loses freedom to close the source, and to hide modifications, but the user gains the freedom to enhance and share any copy that comes to his hands. In the case of government stuff, it's the same case, most citizens are users, so it's better to focus on their freedom (GPL) even though it shaves some of the freedom of the developers, compared to public domain.