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."
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.
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. Not new insight or greater education on the part of law makers.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
From my understanding of the GPL, this would only be true if the government is distributing the modified binaries to the terrorists. If the changes are internal-use only, there isn't a GPL conflict by not distributing the modified source.
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?
Depends. If my company uses OSS in an internal application, I don't have to release the changes back to the public. But, if my company were to distribute a product that uses it we'd have to provide source code.
I'm assuming that the military would not have to release source code in UAV's because they tend to get those products back and therefore it would be an internal product or application. They'd have to release the source for any bombs or missiles though because they are delivering that product to the public.
"terrorism" and "pedophilia" are the root passwords to the Constitution
Microsoft reacted signing a 10 year collaboration agreement with Al Qaeda. Together, they will develop WMD...
Windows Media player Deluxe.
Easy. Just tape the listing to the front of the bomb.
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!!!
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.