Slashdot Mirror
Congress Endorses Open Source For Military
A draft defense authorizing act in Congress includes wording plugging open source software. It seems both cost and software security were considerations. This is an important victory for open source. "It's rare to see a concept as technical as open-source software in a federal funding bill. But the House's proposed National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (H.R. 5658) includes language that calls for military services to consider open-source software when procuring manned or unmanned aerial vehicles."
Open Source is already in use on a number of newer platforms, nothing new here.
Impetuous! Homeric!
Face it, when you need a real time operating system, Linux is not the choice of a new generation.
Information servers, fancy GUI update stuff, maybe. Missiles and flight control systems, not so much.
Kood we get our edditors some speelchuckers pleez?
Seriously, this is just getting sad.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
that government is realizing that security through obscurity is not a good plan.
I wonder if this will cause new clauses in gpl terms similar to commercial usage clauses preventing the support of any millitary, etc?
Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
You can be sure that Microsoft and other proprietary companies will be fighting tooth and nail to remove this provision.
It's a half battle where only proprietary software is trying to win.
It's like saying "victory for the earthquake" if an earthquake destroys a building that was supposed to resist.
Anyone here even realize you don't have an app installed that you really want? Joker@Aspen20:~$ sudo apt-get install IFF Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done E: Couldn't find package IFF Joker@Aspen20:~$ sudo apt-get install flares Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done E: Couldn't find package flares Joker@Aspen20:~$ sudo eject You may now remove the cd Joker@Aspen20:~$ aghfaurgsdasf bash: aghfaurgsdasf: command not found
If the Government uses open source code that is under the GPL license, and modifies it to include some security or other feature that is considered to be under the umbrella of "National Security", are they required to provide the source code to terrorists so they can attempt to crack it?
The real question is what company is trying to sell UAVs to the government, and is offering open source. My guess is one of the small Israeli companies managed to get this put in the appropriations bill to help them.
Perhaps it'll show up here one day.
Federal Enterprise Architecture
-fragbait
now it is great to know that the gov't will want me to release the software i write.
First, that's not what TFA (or even the summary) says. Second, there are a lot of companies writing, documenting, and using open source software. Open source <> "no profit".
our small business is gonna make it, i promise!
I wouldn't exactly call your business "small", Mr Ballmer! ;)
Free Martian Whores!
Yeah, 'cause that's what this is about -- the government FORCING open source. Try to at least read TFS. And maybe you just need to cut a few more corners before you don't have to worry about your job going to India!
In order to try saving money, they'll probably do something really stupid that will end up costing them money.
Like setup a Linux environment, and realize they have some old, critical, archaic, crappy piece of software that only runs on Windows NT.
So they'll get some virutualization software inorder to run Windows on their new Linux servers in order to get that old app running.
So they'll virtualize a bunch of old NT boxes, only to find out app doesn't work well when running on virtualized Windows.
So then they have to install new Server 2008 boxes to run the old app, only to find out the old version of that app won't run on Windows versions newer than NT 3.5.
So now they pay millions for a new version of said critical app.
Then they realized the new version of the app has a Linux version.
Then some figures out that the old app could have run under WINE.
Shameless plug alert: Game server control panel
Microsoft reacted signing a 10 year collaboration agreement with Al Qaeda. Together, they will develop WMD...
Windows Media player Deluxe.
We'll see what happens to his small business after the BSA raids and trashes his outfit because he used 2 pirated copies of Windows unwittingly installed by the Geek Squad tech who fixed his computers.
Hmm, the BSA vs. the military(yes, they use a LOT of Windows boxes and cannot possibly keep track of all those licenses) would be an amusing cage match.
Well, this will allow the US to implement Open Warfare worldwide
If you are in the software business, and that is your best attempt at understanding TFA and OSS in general, you don't need to worry; your business is already doomed ;-)
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
spelling error is the editor's, original journal entry correctly spelled - http://tech.slashdot.org/~Presto+Vivace/journal/212693
It's rare to see a concept as technical as open-source software in a federal funding bill.
Open Source is a legal and business concept. You'd hope that a few hundred lawyers would be able to figure that one out.
I already see some misunderstanding in other threads in this conversation. (a) people say the military won't give back the changes they make to GPL software. (b) people say that because it is GPL, the "bad guys" will get it.
For the first point, the GPL does not require changes to be merged back into the main development area. It allows (and encourages) projects to FORK the source code into new projects when different applications are desired. This keeps the original projects clean from "feature creep" and gives the different (competing) development teams control of their own development. The limitation that the GPL imposes is that if an organization wants to DISTRIBUTE the executable versions of their software, they would need to include an offer to distribute the source as well. Since it is not in the US military's interest to distribute their software, there is no real concern of (b) the "bad guys" getting the software.
In that vain, the "bad guys" would have access to the baseline version if they can figure out what software has been forked into military applications. If the US military is foolish enough to operate this using defaults that are hackable, then it serves them right. I personally think that they are more qualified than that.
A last concern is (c) THIS IS BEING FUNDED BY TAXPAYER MONEY AND IT SHOULD BE OWNED BY THE TAXPAYERS. This is false. I mean, the funding does come from taxes, but the public has no more of a claim for software that is developed for military applications using FOSS software than they do over the software, hardware, and designs of any other piece of military equipment ever designed. These instruments are created for the purpose of providing national security. If the designs were made public, then security WOULD be compromised. Ergo, in the interests of national security it's important for that information to be kept private.
Final point, the GPR (Government Purpose Rights) license. This is a thinly veiled government source license that I have seen the military force on subcontractors in recent years to force Boeing, Lockheed, and all the rest to "play nice". The GPR license is a requirement on contracts so that the government gains the right to send software developed by Lockheed over to Boeing for further analysis. Believe it or not, frequently in legacy codebases you see "Proprietary of XYZ Corporation" and for the most part the government tries to acknowledge these rights. However, they realize that many things are developed over and over again by different companies because they are prevented from leveraging off of each others work (at the cost of the taxpayers). It is encouraging, therefore, to see the government prevent this with GPR.
Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
Two organization enter..one with heavy firepower.
Yes, I would enjoy watching that.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
enterprise level licensing is a wonderful thing.
I'll put money on the BSA, all the way. The military may have nukes, but I hear cockroaches can survive a nuclear exchange.
My guess is what you have here is a good indication that some company had enough money to fund a lobbyist to push for this to help them in the future since they use FOSS in their product. That could be, it is still a very good thing.
I wouldn't exactly call your business "small", Mr Ballmer! ;)
Actually flying chairs are still very much a niche market I'm afraid.
You've obviously escaped from the same Defense contracting shop I did. Don't divulge the secrets of how government contracting works... they'll come after us!
DoD and DND has been using Linux for many years. Nuff sed.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
I don't know about the other services, but the Army has been using FOSS for years, especially Linux. They already have UAVs running embedded Linux, and they have worked for years, successfully, I might add, to make their web sites compatible with different platforms. I have been using Linux as my primary OS since 2000 and never had any problem using an Army site. This is just so some Congress Critters can court the geek vote by claiming to push FOSS in an environment where it is already widely used. There was never any obstacle to FOSS in the DOD and they have adopted it very enthusiastically without any "authorization" from Congress.
To comply with the GPL they'll be required to include the source code for GPL'd firmware components of smart bombs.
What should they do? Tape CD's of source code to the side? Or wrap each one with a sheet of paper offering to supply the code for a reasonable handling fee?
I look at this and wonder why open-source has to be specifically endorsed by congress for the military to consider it. The military should consider technologies based on their merits. Does Congress need to pass a bill that endorses C++ applications, or closed-source applications? Military and government have used open source software for years with things like SE Linux. I won't complain about the text being in there, but it is indicative of the wrong mind set.
Not if you're at a cage match. Watching it on television should be safe, but a cage is too porous for heavy firepower.
If you read the bill - as I have for the past 15 minutes - you wil learn that most of it is about "open source intelligence", which gets discussed as ways to gather info from publicly-available sources: websites, chat rooms, etc.
Open source software code is also included, but does not appear to be the main focus. Additionally, I would expect that for national security reasons, the govt. may slurp open source tools into their mix, but I would not expect them to share much. I do believe they may be exempt from most license issues due to national security regs and such, at least in some situations.
From my experience, the way it would work is that if it is a COTS product, they would already have the latest or close to latest version running. Usually at least the 2003/2005 version if not the 2008 version. If it is a internally developed app or an app developed by contractors for the military only, they will keep said boxes running as is until they can convert it to work on the new system. They already have the boxes and software licenses, why wouldn't they be used. The military is not as dumb as people think. Or at least not the lower ranks where the real work is being done.
not a second too late...
Large defense contractors have enterprise level licensing for all windows products. We can install as many copies of whatever we want on as many boxes as we want. That said i do almost all my dev work on a CentOS machine.
A BSA style raid would be interesting to watch. We have Armed security that doesnt put up with a lot of BS. And their jobs are on the line if they let some in who's not suppose to be there so the snow job crab the BSA tries to pull most of the time just wouldnt work.
And if they tried to force their way in. We always need live fire testing subjects.
"I ahve no idea ..."
Did you perhaps mean 'have'?.....Hmmm???
"Hey, I can be pedantic."
No comment.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Microsoft {...} will develop WMD {...} Windows Media player Deluxe.
I'm sure this will probably infringe several parts of the Geneva convention about "cruel and inhumane treatments".
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
About time. I did some contract work in DC a couple of years back. I watched as they threw down 200k in Weblogic licenses when JBoss would have worked instead. They didn't care because it wasn't their money.
Most all the software I develop goes to the US government, mostly the DoD. I've been using Open Source for well over 20 years now. I don't think it was called "open source" back then but still much of it was.
You have to remember that government contractors and universities had access to the Internet starting back in the late 1970's and were on USNET long before there was a web.
I'm certain that the government and military were the second users of open source universities being the first users. Only after the web got popular did open source spread out into the rest of the world.
I've been a Defense Contractor (go ahead, boo and hiss) for 10 years now. We've used open source software as much as possible for a whole salvo of reasons:
-cut costs
-well investigated software from security/reliability standpoint
-good community support for any additional development
Most often the deliverables I turn over to the customer at the end of the contract.
We have language in many of our contracts specifically calling out for the use of Open Source software whenever possible. I'm baffled as to why this is a surprise. Do people really believe that the DoD is a bunch of crew-cut sporting generals barking orders with cigars hanging out of their mouths?
I know many examples that use Linux - it is my job. I also know many projects that are over budget and under performing that use VxWorks.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
In my mind, the BSA is the #1 reason a company should use nothing BUT open source. If you have no commercial software they can go fuX0r themselves.
If the Geek Squad installs Windows without a license, then he can sue the Geek Squak AND the BSA.
Free Martian Whores!
...this is dangerous. Everyone who has worked in IT knows what kind of trouble you get in when non-technical folks start suggesting solutions rather than defining their problem spaces. In the business world it's often users who bring a problem and a solution to IT workers but the problem is the solution often only fixes part of the problem or fixes it poorly. I can easily see Congress creating the same situation here. I personally think OSS software is the best way to go and show a bias toward it in selecting solutions but that said to have it included in legislation is a bit scary.
It's nice to see open source be weaponized. I know GPL was used as a weapon, but maybe now the software it protects could be used in weapons.
I cracked up when I did not find a reference to RTEMS in these posts. Hello?
Youngsters......
So if an unmanned drone is running Windows and gets shot down, does the DOD have to buy another Windows license for the drone that replaces it?
Someone explain this to me. Why is open source in the military good again? I mean I thought that the whole point of open source was that many eyes make bugs shallow, which is understandable for normal consumer code, but who's going to willingly work on code used specifically for the military? Would that be considered participating in war? What about other countries taking the code and using it or exploiting it in some way?
Somehow this just doesnt sit well with me.
This is actually a far bigger deal than just some minor win for the open source. Most people don't understand that government software projects are their own huge industry. Whenever the military has a need for a specific application that doesn't exist (or even sometimes does), they solicit bids for the solution. These solutions are often something that many of us here can whip up in a weekend of hard coding, but because of the way government projects work, the company who wins the bid usually complicates the spec further, wastes time, extends the budget, and maybe delivers a proprietary half-assed end result while walking away with millions of taxpayer dollars.
Open source could, theoretically, sidestep this industry in many cases.
We have some systems here that run RHEL. On the unix systems we used to use zircon, since mirc is windows only.
FOSS software exists here, it's just very, very rare.
And which weapons or tactical systems use Zircon? On which weapons or tactical systems do you use RHEL?
I'll consider making that my new sig. The true meaning of EULA revealed at last.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
As another data point (and one that's more predictable than the military), NASA actively recommends open source software for its software solicitations.
WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy