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."
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
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?
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.
Agreed. Even in the commercial and space world Greenhills RTOS is one of the most widely used since it is flight certified already.
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.
Linux is not the choice of a new generation.
Posting anonymously...
I know of at least one embedded real time platform that fly's using none of the cruft from GHS or VxWorks. This platform leverages GCC for compilation and GDB for debugging.
I know of another embedded real time platform that is used in military communications that DOES use GHS cruft.
The most compelling evidence that I know of not to rely on GHS... there were software bugs in it that were discovered, isolated, and patched under the support agreements. There have been no such bugs in the GNU tools that have needed outside influence to fix.
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
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!
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.
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 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.
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.
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.