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."
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.
The House's proposed National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 is new, and it's what TFA is about.
Free Martian Whores!
that government is realizing that security through obscurity is not a good plan.
There was never anything actually preventing Government developers from considering Open Source previously. This will simply remind some Dev Managers that the option exists, even though their actual developers have probably been using it for years. The side effects of this bill will most likely bring out Microsoft's and other proprietary software house's lobbyists out of the woodwork. They've only painted another target.
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.
Their about on par with CNET editors actually. Though I'm not saying that is good news...
*sigh* Their = They're
And, in fairness, in actual printed newspapers I frequently cringe at the atrocious spelling and grammar I see.
Doesn't mean I'm in favor of it.
And, I don't know about the rest of you, but Firefox is spell-checking as I fill in forms, so it's not like it's tough to get some help.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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
Grammar masochist?
It's been getting worse lately. A lot of papers are cutting back, and the first people to go are copy editors. That's why the spelling and grammar of the average newspaper has been declining into "USA Today"-like territory.
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
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.
Oh, stop it... they're using the VxWorks spellchecker. It's very real time, and very fast.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
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
Also, most military women trim their bush or shave it outright.
Ah, you're confusing Open Source with Open Sores.
Trolling is a art,
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.
Yes, and it will probably give them leverage when negotiating with those vendors.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.
Wrong, TFA is about open source software, something the services have been working on for years. The F-35 has open source software for the displays, the Navy CIO has already endorsed open source software, the Army is incoporating it into the Land Warrior program, etc. Congress (and by extension /. by posting this) is behind the power curve, hence my original point stands, it's Old News.
And, who modded this guy informative?
Impetuous! Homeric!
I'm not quite sure why this was labeled as flamebait. It wasn't meant that way... I'm just rather sad that the state of editing in general (not just Slashdot) has slipped to such a great degree. I regularly find and cringe at overlooked spelling and MAJOR grammatical errors in all sorts of media. I find that seeing them in fiction books is the worst though, as it really interrupts the story. It's almost as if an M-80 went off in the same room or something.
Maybe a bit. It's not 100% voluntary though.
Hey, I can be pedantic.
Should I expect anything less? :)
From a non-USA point of view, I think this is a great step for open source solutions, but more for software in general.
It's been know that whatever the US military puts their hands on, that can grow to a great size. The whole Arpanet->Internet analogy may or may not be flawed for this. A lot of innovation comes from military funded projects.
The open source model is a great source (no pun intended) of innovation and combining those two points could lead to a massive step forward.
/PersonalOpinion
DON'T PANIC.
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.
DoD and DND has been using Linux for many years. Nuff sed.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Just because it's not a real word doesn't mean it's not spelled right.
*g*
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.
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.
Only to a limited sense. The US Government tends to contract many software solutions to the big defense contractors. Those contractors have already been using open source software as part of their solutions. All this does is reaffirm the option of allowing it as a component.
Software vendors will now need ways to differentiate their offerings to those who provide solutions to US Government agencies. I imagine we'll see more "partnerships" (not that they don't happen now) that will influence solutions. I can't count the number of projects I've worked on where as a developer you say "open source product A would work great" but the manager says "we're using commercial product B". Many trade studies we use internally often lack open source solutions too unfortunately.
Mij
"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 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!
There was plenty preventing the use of open source. There was a desire to have MS Windows and MS Office no matter what, because that's what the users knew. There were political motivations. There was also this pervasive thinking that "you get what you pay for", therefore commercial software was inherently superior to freely available open source. Free software really throws government budgeting folks for a loop, and they will actually demand commercial software seemingly just so that they have expenses to track. It's rather funny and sad to see their forms imply that software costs money. They would come up with all manner of excuses. MS is an American company and good patriots should buy American. And it's good for our economy. Also, American is more secure because there aren't any foreign employees to insert malicious software into the code. This of course conveniently ignores that there are plenty of American programmers who might do that, and that American companies hire foreigners and farm out work internationally. Then there was the argument that having the source be open was itself inherently insecure. Or they'd dig up some government regulations or directives that say they have to use software that meets certain standards (such as EAL4), and the only thing certified is this commercial stuff that they happen to like, and they're really really sorry they can't use open source, but rules are rules. Problems, such as what to do if a vendor folds and orphans a bunch of expensive software, were ignored. There was very much a double standard in force. Lobbyists had many angles to work, and hardly needed to come up with justifications themselves with all the reasons the government was eager to hand them.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
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.
I was very happy to see this. Yet you have made me stop and think about this. Is your point that maybe operating by stealth might be more wise until open source is more pervasive?
I tended to always have been more of the sort to be loud about everything I am going after.
I'll definately keep your phrase "They've only painted another target" in mind.
Where does this idea come from?
Thanks.
Joe Baker
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.
Only to a limited sense. The US Government tends to contract many software solutions to the big defense contractors. Those contractors have already been using open source software as part of their solutions. All this does is reaffirm the option of allowing it as a component. Software vendors will now need ways to differentiate their offerings to those who provide solutions to US Government agencies. I imagine we'll see more "partnerships" (not that they don't happen now) that will influence solutions. I can't count the number of projects I've worked on where as a developer you say "open source product A would work great" but the manager says "we're using commercial product B". Many trade studies we use internally often lack open source solutions too unfortunately.
Actually it does a bit more for them than that - it makes it easier and less risky for them to use it.
For software to be approved for use on US Government systems it has to be tested JITC, SPAWAR, and similar agencies (depending on the target system), and there are a lot of factors that are taken into consideration. Should it pass, this would make it a lot easier to get open source solutions through those agencies since there would now be a legal mandate to help push them. It would also reduce the risk a contractor takes of using some open source software or commercialized open source software in their stack (e.g. Qt) when they go to get certified.
And certification is a BIG thing. You either need to be certified or have the appropriate waivers to operate. If you don't/can't get them, then you're screwed. This should make it easier to get waivers, and should also make it easier to get certified.
So yes, there is open source use already; but this makes it easier for expanded use of open source or open source related products - especially when the contractors are developing something new to sell to the government.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
I worked as a government contractor for a while. I saw all this. I heard government employees and contractors give all those reasons I related. Can you say the same, Mr. AC? Granted, that particular outfit was pretty sleazy, and it's been a few years. I hope most of the many, many other departments within the government are more reasonable.
Of course software and even individual lines of code come from all over the world. You missed the point. If they didn't like the software for whatever reason, its allegedly foreign origin was one handy excuse to reject it. If they liked it, they had no problem overlooking foreign contributions. There was precious little objectivity in their thinking. They could always come up with reasons to reject anything, and they were heavily biased against open source.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
I have to agree with the others; especially since Red Hat's Enterprise Linux (RHEL) used by the US government is rated at the same level as Trusted Solaris, which is at the highest level achievable by COTS software. Not even Microsoft can claim that with any version of Windows (past or present). I think Novell's SuSE (SLES) is similarly rated - RHEL and SLES were going back and forth for a while with who had the higher rating.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
Not so much the desktop, maybe, but we could be approaching the decade of (Free) Software Defined Radio (SDR).
Note that the Software Communications Architecture (SCA) uses CORBA (Common Object Request Broker Architecture) and POSIX (Portable Operating System Interface, a name RMS coined "in response to an IEEE request for a memorable name" ), and while its of military origin (and currently used by the US/UN Joint Tactical Radio System JTRS) its also under commercial evaluation. The Object Management Group (OMG, originators of UML, CORBA, etc... ) established the Software Based Communications Domain Task Force (SBC-DTF), which is working with the Software Defined Radio Forum to develop an international commercial standard based on the SCA. Note also that the SCA is extending its coverage to programmable hardware FPGA and digital signal processors.
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/
Do people really believe that the DoD is a bunch of crew-cut sporting generals barking orders with cigars hanging out of their mouths?
Yes, they do. The great unwashed believe that military personnel behave exactly like the actors in whatever shitty action movie they most recently watched.
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