Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New DoD Memo On Open Source Software

Posted by kdawson on from the rules-of-engagement dept.

dwheeler writes "The US Department of Defense has just released a new official memo on open source software: 'Clarifying Guidance Regarding Open Source Software (OSS).' (The memo should be up shortly on this DoD site.) This memo is important for anyone who works with the DoD, including contractors, on software and systems that include software; it may influence many other organizations as well. The DoD had released a memo back in 2003, but 'misconceptions and misinterpretations... have hampered effective DoD use and development of OSS.' The new memo tries to counter those misconceptions and misinterpretations, and is very positive about OSS. In particular, it lists a number of potential advantages of OSS, and recommends that in certain cases the DoD release software as OSS."

112 of 146 comments (clear)

  1. hmm military using OSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    gives a new meaning to terms such as "fatal exception" and "kernel panic"

    1. Re:hmm military using OSS by sexconker · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think you meant "Colonel Panic".

    2. Re:hmm military using OSS by lorenlal · · Score: 1

      "Crashes" take on a whole new importance too...

    3. Re:hmm military using OSS by Migala77 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm still wondering what happened to General Protection Fault.

      Is he retired? Missing In Action?

    4. Re:hmm military using OSS by Penguinshit · · Score: 4, Funny

      Major Malfunction got promoted?

      --

      I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...

    5. Re:hmm military using OSS by md65536 · · Score: 5, Funny

      He was involved in some illegal operations and they ended up shutting down the whole program. I heard they were calling for the death penalty but his execution was halted at the last minute.

    6. Re:hmm military using OSS by Bat+Country · · Score: 2, Funny

      Somebody took exception to him.

      --
      The land shall stone them with the bread of his son.
    7. Re:hmm military using OSS by the_other_chewey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, General Failure screwed up once too often...

    8. Re:hmm military using OSS by hardwarefreak · · Score: 1

      No, General Failure screwed up once too often...

      No, it was really General Protection's fault.

    9. Re:hmm military using OSS by tukia · · Score: 1

      It's just an attempt by General Failure to spy on us again... General Failure reading this, General Failure reading that ....

    10. Re:hmm military using OSS by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 1

      Did he abuse Private Memory again?

  2. This is very odd... by Zarf · · Score: 5, Funny

    the government is acting intelligently. I feel strange.

    --
    [signature]
    1. Re:This is very odd... by pilgrim23 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      a 2009 memo to clarify a 2003 memo. ...and acting at speed of light too!

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    2. Re:This is very odd... by sexconker · · Score: 4, Funny

      Faster than the speed of light.
      It's a tachyon memo from now to 2003.

      Just think! Once they receive the memo, 2003 and onward will happen with the new memo.
      Thus, the present will be altered, and we'll have all the benefits of the new memo being in effect for 6 full year.

    3. Re:This is very odd... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Funny

      the government is acting intelligently. I feel strange.

      Maybe they have been taken over by aliens.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    4. Re:This is very odd... by lorenlal · · Score: 1

      Wait... we didn't?

    5. Re:This is very odd... by wizardforce · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The government has always acted in its own interests. Perhaps they have realised that releasing software as OSS suits their purposes.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    6. Re:This is very odd... by e2d2 · · Score: 1

      Nah they'll help you. Whether you like it or not.

    7. Re:This is very odd... by Locutus · · Score: 1, Interesting

      probably has more to do with who's now running the office of the President. Remember, in 2001 that same administration who sat on the 2003 memo canceled the hybrid vehicle DoT program and pushed forward the hydrogen vehicle program which stopped all US auto makers from continuing with hybrids and instead just made $1 million hydrogen prototypes. They were so pro business they felt it was best they decided what was bad for their business partners and what was best for the pockets of their business partners.

      the current administration is still making mistakes but they are also doing some things right. We shall see if the DoD has figured this out. My guess is yes. I'd heard of some programs which had been failing and running up costs using Microsoft stuff and when that was swapped out for OSS, the projects started making real progress. There used to be alot of UNIX in the DoD but Windows found its way in and really depreciated the quality and reliability they used to have( where I once worked atleast ). Maybe they finally figured out it's time to stop being a sucker and go with what not only is often more reliable but is totally open for them to play in but also fix and bend to do things not originally intended. IMO

      LoB

      --
      "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
    8. Re:This is very odd... by rezonat0r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The government has always acted in its own interests. Perhaps they have realised that releasing software as OSS suits their purposes.

      People have always acted in their own interests. A good government (one that is of and by the people) acting in its own interest is acting in your interest as well.

      Not saying this is always the case, but it does happen. Using your money to develop software that is licensed for you to use freely is a good example.

    9. Re:This is very odd... by wizardforce · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Good governments are rare if not non-existent. When you empower one group to rule over another, the temptation to use that power to benefit the ruling group is very strong.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    10. Re:This is very odd... by xyphor · · Score: 5, Interesting

      probably has more to do with who's now running the office of the President.

      No, Obama had nothing to do with it. I sent comments about the draft version of this document well over a year ago. Yes, it takes government this long to do something this logical and simple.

    11. Re:This is very odd... by Garridan · · Score: 1

      No, probably not. You can't trust messages from the future -- even from yourself! You may have been compromised by the enemy.

    12. Re:This is very odd... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      But I thought Obama was personally responsible for every single thing in the massive US government! Are you saying the Internet lied to me?

    13. Re:This is very odd... by risacher · · Score: 5, Informative

      I wrote the memo (mostly). Here's some historical context:

      In 2001-2002 (or so), the Defense Information Systems Agency was in the process of certifying RHEL as being compliant with the Common Operating Environment, which was like a DoD-version of the LSB, sorta. Rumor has it (was before my time) that a certain OS vendor (popular in the desktop space) took exception to this fact and drafted an unsolicited memo for the DoD CIO, which effectively would have banned OSS.

      The DoD CIO at the time was a guy named John Stenbit. Stenbit was (and is) a strong-willed visionary, who wasn't about to roll over for anybody, so he (through DISA) commissioned a survey of how much OSS was currently in use in DoD. The study got farmed out to MITRE, specifically a guy named Terry Bollinger. The results of the study were that OSS was being used in lots of places across DoD, in some cases for mission-critical things, and interestingly extensively by the information assurance community. (e.g. snort)

      So Stenbit got someone to write a new memo, which he signed in 2003. It said roughly: OSS is okay, it's just like other software, but make sure that you get approval before you use it. (Same as anything else.) Stenbit retired from gov't in 2004.

      In April 2008, the Deputy CIO (Dave Wennergren) got the idea that we ought to have updated DoD guidance on Open Source Software. I believe it was suggested to him by Scott McNealy (Sun), Art Money (former DoD CIO from 1999-2001), and Bill Vass (Sun, but former gov't executive under the DoD CIO). Dave asked around if there was anybody on the CIO staff at the time who knew much about OSS. That ended up being me.

      I was a CS major at MIT, class of '95; used to work down the hall from Richard Stallman. I was on ROTC scholarship and later served about 6 years as an active-duty officer. I started working as a civilian in gov't in 2002, and in 2004 I took a position with the office of DoD CIO - partially so that I'd be in the right place to advocate OSS in gov't.

      Four years later, I got an golden opportunity: I got the task to figure out what the updated OSS guidance should say.

      I drafted the memo, with help from lots of folks, including David Wheeler, John Scott, LtCol John Barrette, Dave Emery, Terry Bollinger, MaryAnn Kiefer, Roger Loeb, Frank Petroski, Monique Pryce, JC Herz, and probably others I forgot to mention. I briefed the concept to Wennergren. Got feedback. Revised. Sent out to other offices in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) for coordination. Sent to the Military Department CIO offices for coordination. Spent many, many hours coordinating and revising with the Office of General Counsel (OGC) for the OSD, the Army, USAF, and Dept of Navy. It was mostly done a year ago, but it kept getting held up because someone wanted to review and comment.

      One paragraph in the memo is traceable to a particularly heinous licensing debacle with a particular software vendor (not Microsoft) that affected a particular software project, and could have been avoided by using OSS.

      The lawyers were by far the biggest delay. I wanted to reference the Open Source Definition (published by the Open Source Initiative), but lawyers wouldn't let me, on the grounds that doing so could be considered an endorsement of a non-federal entity, which would violate the Joint Ethics Regulation. I argued that this was a ludicrous interpretation of the JER, and eviscerates the authority granted to the CIO by the Clinger-Cohen Act. But after months of no-progress, I compromised and the final memo does not reference the OSI.

      There was no direct involvement by the White House for the 2009 memo, and I don't think for the 2003 memo either. The generally favorable attitude from the current administration toward "openness" meant that I (and I think Mr. Wennergren) felt a pro-open memo would be well received, but we didn't consult with the WH, nor does the WH get that deep into agency policy - even for an agency as big as DoD. If the WH wanted to push po

      --

      "The simplest solution is to ignore your dead children."

    14. Re:This is very odd... by rob333 · · Score: 1

      Not really; they've realized that a LONG time ago. SELinux is basically an NSA creation, and was the first implementation of mandatory access controls for Linux. As the DOD implements and requires a MAC system for obvious reasons on their essential systems, this brought using Linux into the realm of possibility way back in 2000.

    15. Re:This is very odd... by russ1337 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Obama is responsible for everything that happens in his Government.

      I learned that lesson during my Officer training. It was my final 'lead' assessment, and we were on a patrol against hostile forces. My team had been briefed twice that day on the rules of engagement by me, and my 2IC was briefed by me a third time as well as he had to give the brief to another group. I'd then checked understanding of the ROE with the group after he'd done so.

      We went on patrol and encountered enemy. We had one of the enemy guys cornered and he 'surrendered' walking toward my squad with his hands in the air. My 2IC saw the enemy guy, and recognized him as one of his best mates. In about one second he raised his rifle - and with a grin on his face - fired (blanks) at the guy. By the time he had his weapon at his shoulder I was yelling at him to stand-down, but he continued and 'shot' the prisoner. I was hauled over the coals by the instructors, and my final mark was going to be the difference between a distinguished graduation and merit graduation. I said "OK, what could I have done differently to get a higher mark?" The answer: "Nothing. You did everything right, you've just learned a hard lesson in leadership. You are responsible for the actions of your team. If this were real you'd be up on war crimes."

      The lesson: You are responsible for the actions of your team.

    16. Re:This is very odd... by The+Evil+Couch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Within the military community, you're absolutely correct, but politicians are rarely held to the same standard. If Joe Biden shot someone without provocation, Obama wouldn't face any problems but pressure to fire Biden and have him stand trial. If Private Joe Snuffy shoots someone for the hell of it, his Platoon Leader's getting fired.

      --
      The World's Worst Webcomic!
    17. Re:This is very odd... by dakameleon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Within the military community, you're absolutely correct, but politicians are rarely held to the same standard. If Joe Biden shot someone without provocation, Obama wouldn't face any problems but pressure to fire Biden and have him stand trial.

      wait, so what happened with Bush & Cheney when Cheney did shoot someone?

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
    18. Re:This is very odd... by advocate_one · · Score: 1

      The lawyers were by far the biggest delay. I wanted to reference the Open Source Definition (published by the Open Source Initiative), but lawyers wouldn't let me, on the grounds that doing so could be considered an endorsement of a non-federal entity, which would violate the Joint Ethics Regulation. I argued that this was a ludicrous interpretation of the JER, and eviscerates the authority granted to the CIO by the Clinger-Cohen Act. But after months of no-progress, I compromised and the final memo does not reference the OSI./blockquote>

      that explains why Microsoft has been so keen to set up it's own "open source" definition... and also why so keen to promote their own "open" standards...

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    19. Re:This is very odd... by howlingmadhowie · · Score: 1

      The government has always acted in its own interests.

      oh, citation needed big time. maybe this is true in some communist/fascist dictatorships, but i really do like to believe (and i see evidence that supports this belief) that in first-world countries with constitutions and functioning legal systems, the government is mostly a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

    20. Re:This is very odd... by Renegade88 · · Score: 1

      The military loves acronyms, so that makes you a FIG?

      (I'm former US military too, different branch)

    21. Re:This is very odd... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      While parent's opinion is a little skewed, it's not as bad an evaluation as first glance suggests. I do really think the Bush administration was hostile to OSS, and the Obama administration is friendly towards OSS. Given one or more administrations friendly to OSS, anything may happen in the next several years. Advances equivalent to the past 8 years may only take 2 or 3 years. Once OSS gains a little momentum, well, just use your imagination.

      And, the payoff may be decades away. There are a number of future programmers and system's administrators and upper management people serving NOW, who are going to be exposed to the advantages of OSS. We may see the same philosophy moving into mainstream business 5 to 10 years from now.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    22. Re:This is very odd... by Simetrical · · Score: 1

      Within the military community, you're absolutely correct, but politicians are rarely held to the same standard. If Joe Biden shot someone without provocation, Obama wouldn't face any problems but pressure to fire Biden and have him stand trial.

      wait, so what happened with Bush & Cheney when Cheney did shoot someone?

      . . . nothing, because it was obviously a hunting accident? Where, you know, the victim said it was an accident, and he was cleared of any wrongdoing after preliminary investigation? When you go around shooting things, it's possible for people to get hurt by mistake, and everyone involved understands and accepts this.

      --
      MediaWiki developer, Total War Center sysadmin
    23. Re:This is very odd... by davide+marney · · Score: 1

      The lawyers were by far the biggest delay.

      The law grinds unbelievably slowly, especially compared to the rest of the Internet-addled world. One year to get the lawyers to agree to a memo like this is really rushing them.

      Tech people are generally clueless about what happens when the lawyers get involved. Lawyers are trained to find problems, not to create new things such as software or services. They are trained very, very well. Things are rarely, if ever, perfect. Problems WILL be found.

      Call in a lawyer, double the delivery time. That's my rule of thumb.

      --
      "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
    24. Re:This is very odd... by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      You must be new here. On Slashdot, most information IS found in the comments.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    25. Re:This is very odd... by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      Good governments are rare if not non-existent. When you empower one group to rule over another, the temptation to use that power to benefit the ruling group is very strong.

      Governments are made up of people. People are stupid, lazy, resentful, emotional...or just posting to Slashdot while they should be working. Heck, I see tons of waste around me every single day, it's just the way of the world. For every n people in an organization producing actual product, there's n^2 telling them when and how to do it(the why often gets left out).

      Never attribute to malice...

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    26. Re:This is very odd... by hmar · · Score: 1

      Well, I haven't seen any suggestion that there is info in TFA. Of course, who would know?

    27. Re:This is very odd... by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      ***Within the military community, you're absolutely correct***

      So, the entire chain of command was court marshalled as a result of the My Lai massacre? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre). Not that I recall. Reality is that unless you lose a war and can't get to neutral ground before the victors catch up with you, military justice stops at the designated fall guy.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    28. Re:This is very odd... by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      I agree with you. But I should point out that like millions of other folks in small town/rural America, both my fire protection and ambulance service are provided by volunteer organizations. The municipal government does do police and roads, but smaller towns hire out their policing from the state government (Unlike most of the country counties don't amount to much in New England). I suppose they could rent cops from Brinks et. al. although I for one much prefer my police not be models of the free enterprise system.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    29. Re:This is very odd... by pugugly · · Score: 1

      Actually, that sound like the plot to a fairly cool SF novel

      Pug

      --
      An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
    30. Re:This is very odd... by Spykk · · Score: 1

      The fact that I understood that wall of acronymns is vaguely disconcerting...

    31. Re:This is very odd... by blakelarson · · Score: 1

      It does happen, but Cheney was obviously very careless in shooting his friend in the face. It wasn't some random hunter a quarter-mile away, it was a member of his hunting party. If the NRA had some principles, it should have criticized Cheney's lack of judgment. Isn't gun safety one of their goals? The best part was when the victim *apologized* for being shot in the face. Can you imagine being put in that position?

    32. Re:This is very odd... by Mr.+Sanity · · Score: 1

      Actually, the version of yourself in Reality Beta-Prime Offset 2009 Subset 2003 Interference Pattern DoD will be the beneficiary of progress of that memo. You'll still be in this lame timeline. But on the upside, there are no zombies with assault rifles (AKA "hunting packs") here.

    33. Re:This is very odd... by Locutus · · Score: 1

      good to hear the WH didn't get involved but sad to hear it really took that long. I know there are people in management who, for whatever reason, have been massively pro-Microsoft even when the engineers were saying no. Getting a good OSS policy past these people can be tough if not impossible. And I've seen this in the private sector too.

      I'm keeping my fingers crossed you people were able to put together a policy that's fair but also very open to OSS. And thanks for such a thorough reply.

      LoB

      --
      "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
    34. Re:This is very odd... by sjames · · Score: 1

      That someone essentially apologized to Cheney for letting his face get in the way. One wonders what went on behind the scenes to inspire THAT!

  3. NMCI by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think at least 50% of the technical people in the Navy and Marine Corp would like to see (the next version of) NMCI switch to an open-source OS.

    At least they can always dream...

    1. Re:NMCI by superid · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Are you KIDDING me? The SAME people forcing me to use IE6 want me to use OSS??

    2. Re:NMCI by thtrgremlin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wouldn't complain to much about getting all the right tools for all the wrong reasons; better than all the wrong tools for the wrong reasons.

      --
      Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
    3. Re:NMCI by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't complain to much about getting all the right tools for all the wrong reasons; better than all the wrong tools for the wrong reasons.

      Yes, but from what I've heard, NMCI is providing all the wrong tools for all the wrong reasons.

    4. Re:NMCI by Nadaka · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I am a contractor on an Air Force project. My facility is up to IE 7 and windows Vista. IE 8 is strictly forbidden, and firefox is not approved for use on the project, though it works just fine with the exception that the default font is a little to small to comfortably read.

    5. Re:NMCI by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      Ctrl-+
      :-)

  4. But ... by KC1P · · Score: 1

    >and recommends that in certain cases the DoD release software as OSS.

    How can the DoD release software under a copyleft license when the federal government is incapable of holding copyrights in the first place? I thought it was all automatically PD if it's not secret? Not that that's stopped anyone from asserting copyright when it suits them.

    1. Re:But ... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Because the code will be developed by an outside contractor, and the copyright will be held by them.

    2. Re:But ... by DragonWriter · · Score: 2, Informative

      How can the DoD release software under a copyleft license when the federal government is incapable of holding copyrights in the first place?

      Government agencies are required, IIRC, to respect* private copyrights, and releasing software that is derivative of private works that are under a copyleft license under the same license might be consistent with (and might even be necessary, if the software is released at all, to comply with) those regulations.

      * As I understand, its not bound in the same way a private party is, but is restricted under the law in what it can do with copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright holder.

    3. Re:But ... by Wannabe+Code+Monkey · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How can the DoD release software under a copyleft license when the federal government is incapable of holding copyrights in the first place?

      Come on! I like the GPL as much as any other free-software-loving-commie but even I don't think OSS==copyleft. Public domain, along with BSD and MIT type licenses are recognized as open source (heck, software released under them is even recognized as "free" by the free software crowd).

      --
      We always knew Comcast was corrupt, here's the proof: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1909890&cid=34545432
    4. Re:But ... by KillerBob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How can the DoD release software under a copyleft license when the federal government is incapable of holding copyrights in the first place? I thought it was all automatically PD if it's not secret? Not that that's stopped anyone from asserting copyright when it suits them.

      Just because the DoD develops software doesn't mean they have to release it at all. You can request the software under Access to Information (FOIA in the US, I think?), but they can always cite national security reasons for not releasing, say, the guidance code for the Tomahawk missile.

      Without having read the memo in full, I would presume that they're talking about what license to use when releasing stuff. I'd sincerely doubt that they would use something like the GPL/LGPL to release code, but there are other open source licences that are more in line with what the government does. The ones that leap immediately to mind are the BSD and MIT licenses, both of which had their births in the need to keep government-funded developments in the public domain.

      --
      If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
    5. Re:But ... by wizardforce · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Anything funded by the federal government including private work should be considered the property of the people and thus released into the public domain.
      We, the public, should not be expected to pay twice for work done by the private sector. Either we pay for the work and have all of it released for us to utilize or the work remains proprietary and receives no funding from the public.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    6. Re:But ... by samkass · · Score: 5, Informative

      No software these days is developed from scratch, and the Government would be paying way, way more if it tried and probably getting significantly worse products. Most major programs utilize some proprietary code, for which the Government pays for "Government Purpose Rights". That means that the Government can use the software and often even demand the source code and deliver it to other contractors. But no one is allowed to use it for non-Government projects without contacting the original author and attaining their own license. It's kind of a Government version of dual-licensed open source.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    7. Re:But ... by ascari · · Score: 1

      Most open source licenses (such as GPL) have little to do with copyright, and more to do with distribution. For example from a GPL perspective it matters less who holds the copy right of a product than the fact that anyone who makes modifications to the product has to license the modifications under the same license and make the source code available.

    8. Re:But ... by thtrgremlin · · Score: 1

      I think that was exactly what wizardforce was arguing against.

      --
      Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
    9. Re:But ... by thtrgremlin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Congress shall have the power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries

      Hmm... I think it has everything to do with copyright protection.

      "securing for limited time" is the operative clause to the subject of the law being to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". The GPL is not only very clear about the when and how of exclusive control, but has in part been critical in maintaining law that has almost been completely lost to an age of fascism and tyranny.

      good site:http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080220/020252302.shtml

      --
      Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
    10. Re:But ... by KC1P · · Score: 1

      Yeah but you must hold a copyright in order to put a license on the code in the first place. And my understanding (possibly out of date and/or misinformed) is that US law forbids the federal government from holding copyrights, for the reasons that wizardforce said (WE paid for it so it already belongs to all of us). Controlling distribution is exactly what a license does, since by default, copyright law basically says "no copying!" -- so the license gives conditions under which the copyright holder will allow users to copy the software.

    11. Re:But ... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Anything funded by the federal government including private work should be considered the property of the people and thus released into the public domain.

      I'll generally agree with you, but there is privately developed software in use by the government, and the military in particular that isn't going to be released on the basis that releasing it would help our enemies more than it'd help citizens of the United States. Stuff like nuclear explosion simulation programs, ballistic missile targeting/flight programs, etc...

      Now, things like the NSA linux build is available.

      There's other software available, if you know where to look, but most of it isn't that useful to the average person.

      Then again, such private work isn't exactly going to be 'free use' for the contractor either - it's developed for the government, with all rights handed over to the government.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    12. Re:But ... by risacher · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For the Defense Department, the contractor typically retains the copyright to whatever they develop, and the gov't gets "government purpose rights" to it, or in some cases "unlimited rights". This is the way rules are laid out in the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement. The DFARS read they way they do because Title 41, US Code says it should be that way. (Or in some cases, Title 10).

      Individual procurements can be different, depending on the negotiated terms of the contract. The DFARS specifies what amounts to "default" clauses, that are usually in place.

      Keep in mind that most gov't employees (and most gov't contractors) have never actually seen a real contract, much less read it. That's what lawyers and contracting officers do... so program/project managers frequently don't actually know what intellectual rights they own.

      Also, it's different for the rest of the federal government (i.e. non-Defense). Copyrights are one of the areas where the FAR and DFARS differ.

      --

      "The simplest solution is to ignore your dead children."

    13. Re:But ... by rob333 · · Score: 1

      It can get more complicated; the AG can and often does issue a memorandum clarifying how it--and hence the DOJ-- feel the FOIA should be interpreted by the executive branch. Ashcroft (Bush's 1st AG) recently severely restricted the ease of getting a FOIA request granted, although Holder (BHO's AG) reversed that policy.

    14. Re:But ... by Tekfactory · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that most gov't employees (and most gov't contractors) have never actually seen a real contract, much less read it. That's what lawyers and contracting officers do... so program/project managers frequently don't actually know what intellectual rights they own.

      Not so in my experience, project managers will find out 'what's in the contract' if the contractor is claiming rights to the code just as soon as they try to re-bid the contract and ask the incumbent to hand over their code.

      This was on the civilian side and contractor claimed all the code belonged to them. FAR said anything they brought from in-house previously developed and re-used on our project remained property of the contractor. Almost nothing was re-used.

      We also had lots of contractors refusing to do the work to Certify and Accredit systems until it was written into their contracts. C&A is now covered under the FAR.

      On the flip side contractor worker bees almost never read the contracts they are working on, so its managers that ensure scope creep turns into more money through contract mods.

    15. Re:But ... by Yfrwlf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the government created its own software, it would be far, far, far far far cheaper, especially of course any software used on millions of computers like for education, police, fire, etc, but also for the bloated central government as well. For example, school districts across the country paying $$$$$$ for hundreds of thousands of licenses for Reader Rabbit could easily pay 1/100000 the cost and developer their own. All it takes is communication/coordination/working together, which is of course what OSS is. Once you have the software, updating/improving it costs even less usually and so future costs would be very low unlike with closed software usually demanding the same high costs over and over again. That adds up.

      --
      Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
    16. Re:But ... by Adustust · · Score: 1

      This is correct, all that needs to be done to ensure that whatever developed software remains exempt from the Freedom of Information Act (5U.S.C.552) is classify it as FOUO (for offical use only) and slap a regulation on it, (IAW DoD 5400.11R) As long as you can say that it would give an enemy knowledge of our inner processes, even how we format our harddrives, it can be FOUO.

  5. there's a few useful bits of software already by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Informative

    In addition to using externally developed free software, various parts of the military have periodically released and continued to support some decent bits of software. BRL-CAD is from the Army Research Lab, and Delta3d is from the Naval Postgraduate School, to pick two examples off the top of my head.

    --
    10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
    1. Re:there's a few useful bits of software already by TimeOut42 · · Score: 2, Informative

      SimKit, Discrete Event Simulation Library, also from the Naval Postgraduate School....

      http://diana.nps.edu/Simkit/

      Sean

    2. Re:there's a few useful bits of software already by lent · · Score: 1

      In another instance,

      Nicholas Harbour, who at the time was working for the Department of Defense Computer Forensics Lab (DCFL)

      wrote a loving modified dd that writes to multiple files and streams to multiple programs at the same time. The program, dcfldd, also introduces the sorely missed VERIFY operation, and even block-by-block hashes, ( dcfldd Man page)

      Maybe someone will combine this with dd_rescue, ddrescue and dd_rhelp to make the ultimate "Convert and Copy" utility :-)

      Ah and I can dream of SCTP support too :-)

    3. Re:there's a few useful bits of software already by mdarksbane · · Score: 1

      Open Scene Graph is also heavily utilized by a lot of military sim software.

      I know in my old government contractor job we used and contributed to probably ten or fifteen different open source projects.

  6. Mil uses lots of Linux and BSD by flyingfsck · · Score: 2, Informative

    Everywhere I go, there are Linux and BSD systems.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:Mil uses lots of Linux and BSD by dremspider · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It all depends on what command or where you are. I have been in places where they are very pro open source, and places where they refuse all requests to OSS. Personally I am really happy about this.

  7. Crash! by hrimhari · · Score: 4, Funny

    And thus another chair is thrown in Redmond.

    --
    http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
    1. Re:Crash! by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      How goes the saying: Every time you throw a chair, somewhere, a Windows system crashes... or was it the other way around...?

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    2. Re:Crash! by Stupid+McStupidson · · Score: 1

      Open Source? In MY global thermo-nuclear war?

    3. Re:Crash! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Holy SHIT chair-throwing jokes are old... and weren't even that funny to begin with...

    4. Re:Crash! by elijahu · · Score: 5, Funny

      Shut up, Steve, and go back to figuring out how to get people to think that Windows 7 is as cool as Binging things on their Zune.

    5. Re:Crash! by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      No, no, they really aren't. They're as funny as RMS-bath jokes, which is to say not.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    6. Re:Crash! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      They're both funny because they both stem from ridiculous but true events. Ballmer threw a chair because he was pissed at Google for taking his employee. That's comedy gold. Stallman is afraid of water. That's also comedy gold. You're a fucking M$ fanboy baboon. That also is hilarious. Also, quite pathetic; yet, it's still hilarious.

    7. Re:Crash! by rob333 · · Score: 1

      Eh, Windows , OS X and other non-crazy secure systems (Linux without MAC through SELinux being enabled/configured or AppArmor) stay pretty far away from the computers that help run one of the largest militaries in the world. With some of the systems being replaced only after decades of use, things would get ugly. Imagine if the main systems were still running Windows 98 or System 8. Not a pretty picture.

    8. Re:Crash! by Hucko · · Score: 1

      Zunes are binging and squirting? eep.

      --
      Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
    9. Re:Crash! by hrimhari · · Score: 1

      Thank you for the informative post, Steve ; )

      --
      http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
    10. Re:Crash! by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      You say I'm pathetic, yet...

      Irony.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  8. This is great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My federal manager was decidedly anti-OSS, he would state that we can't get support on the OSS, so we couldn't use it, denying anything and everything that came through. All I can say now is read it and weep.

    1. Re:This is great... by flyingfsck · · Score: 3, Informative

      Uhh, no support? Red Hat, Novell, Mandriva, HP, IBM, CSE, Dell, Perot...

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    2. Re:This is great... by symbolset · · Score: 1

      openfiler.com offers support for openfiler - the open source iSCSI SAN.

      No, I do no business with them. But there's a lot of folk excited about this at work.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    3. Re:This is great... by jawahar · · Score: 1

      Support = Collusion (for PHBs)

      --
      Slashdot = Sarcasm
  9. Shameless plug by dremspider · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wrote about this a little while ago on why the federal government needs to be using Open Source. http://www.dremspider.net/?p=15 This is what I have seen as a federal contractor.

    1. Re:Shameless plug by symbolset · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hell, I warned them about the trap of commercial software when it was fairly new.

      People don't really remember that almost all software used to be FOSS.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
  10. Some Points on the Memo by perry64 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I was at the Mil-OSS conference this year where this memo was discussed quite a bit, and I just want to mention some things in response to some of the comments. Most of this was in David Wheeler's blog (the first link), but some might have been missed.

    Most government program/project managers are very slow to try new things like OSS. Generally, this is not due to laziness or not being technically up to date, but rather because the number of rules and regulations that they can get hammered for failing to follow is so large that they tend to continue to follow a safe path unless it is incredibly clear that they won’t get in trouble. This memo is designed to give top cover and make clear to all PM’s that using OSS is more than acceptable, it is actually preferred.

    1) Although I can't say for sure how much the new administration's personnel in the Pentagon had to do with being signed, it probably was very little since the memo had been in production for years (rumor was that Dr. Pepper was going to give a free soda to everyone if it came out before 2010, but I don't think that's true). Over beers, one of the people involved with its writing told the story of being asked whether the memo would be out before Thanksgiving and responding, "Without a doubt." That was in 2007!! It probably emerged more from the "Open Technology Roadmap" by John Scott, Mark Lucas, and JC Herz for Sue Peyton in 2006 than any political changes.

    2) Much of the memo just clarifies parts of the DoD's official position on OSS, especially areas that were major targets for FUD by contractors who are trying to sell proprietary systems to the government. For example, they would claim that procurement law requires commercial software to be used, and OSS wasn’t COTS. This was addressed by the 2003 memo, but still the misinformation persisted. Additionally, procurement law requires that software either be warranted or the source code available. Vendors would claim that since OSS isn’t warranted, it couldn’t be used, neglecting the second part of the requirement about source code.

    1. Re:Some Points on the Memo by dkf · · Score: 1

      Over beers, one of the people involved with its writing told the story of being asked whether the memo would be out before Thanksgiving and responding, "Without a doubt." That was in 2007!!

      So, which Thanksgiving were you thinking he was referring to?

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    2. Re:Some Points on the Memo by risacher · · Score: 1

      It was 2008, not 2007. Wennergren proposed the memo in April 2008. I thought it would be out by Thanksgiving 2008, and I was only wrong by a year...

      --

      "The simplest solution is to ignore your dead children."

    3. Re:Some Points on the Memo by perry64 · · Score: 1

      Well Hell then, you need to speak up louder when we're drinking beer so I don't misquote you!!! ;-)

      Sorry about that.

  11. C'mon Steve by symbolset · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We think it's funny. We know you don't think it's funny. That's part of why it's funny. You want to fucking kill google, and all you can do is thrash furniture. Your team can't even keep a fucking SideKick working and you want to take on Android. What is it, a decade of WiMo, and 6.5 is the best you can do?

    Get over it. You're Wile E. Coyote and Google is your Roadrunner. That's some funny shit there. If they call their app store ACME that would complete the joke. Somebody get Sergey on the horn.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
    1. Re:C'mon Steve by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      As much as I would love to see that, they'd run into trademark conflicts with the ACME grocery store chain.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    2. Re:C'mon Steve by symbolset · · Score: 1

      Some problems can be solved by throwing money at them.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
  12. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  13. Re: This is very even by Kalriath · · Score: 1

    I like how you made up half your story. Like the bit about everything needing activation. You know, no paid Microsoft developer tools need activation (developers may be the only group Microsoft treats relatively decently, but I digress).

    Your stuff about ASP.NET is a lie too. Or rather, it takes as long to spin up the ASP.NET runtime as the Java or ColdFusion runtimes. Of course, ASP.NET isn't Open Source so clearly it's not good enough for you.

    --
    For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  14. Re:Hmm...not so sure... by symbolset · · Score: 1

    Here's a template for a C or C++ program:

    //Copyright symbolset (c) 2009
    //License: GPL 2.0 or any later version. Use and share it all you want - but if you publish executables compiled from derived code you have to publish the source under this license.
    int main(int argc, char **argv) {
    //This comment is unique to Symbolset's GPL Code Template.
    }

    Now any government agency can take that template, expand it to do anything they want, and it's GPL rather than public domain.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  15. ABOUT TIME. Too many confused auditors in the DoD by dAzED1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I had been having ongoing arguments with auditors and DoD scanners about Open Source Software versus "freeware" - it's free, so that means it's Freeware - right? Finally, Daniel Risacher from the "Defense Department's Office of the Chief Information Officer" made this announcement.

    Reading that, I got all excited...and waited patiently. For a bit. Finally, come April, I emailed him directly with this question:

    At a RedHat conference on Oct8, 2008, you made a comment that the DoD would further clarify that OSS is not the same as Freeware/ Shareware, for those who are still confused about the subject. We are currently undergoing an audit, and are being told that we can't use various products because they are "shareware" - specifically, mysql was on the hitlist. Discontinuing use of mysql would be an engineering nightmare for us, esp since anything else would also be "freeware" according to the auditors.

    Of course, 8500.2 says that we can't use shareware because we don't have access to the source code, and we obviously have access to the code of open source products. I can't find the memo that you mentioned would be coming soon - has it been released?

    To which he responded:

    From: Daniel Risacher ((redacted))
    Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 3:54 PM
    To: Brian LaMere
    Subject: Re: OSS in DoD?
    The memo is essentially finished, but stuck in an near-endless do-loop of executive-level staffing.
    Forward the names of any gov't personnel who are giving you trouble to my work email: ((redacted)), and I'll try to talk to them.

    Wow...that was back in April. Things sure do move fast around there ;)

    There are countless documents that say so many different things, compounded by the fact that there are a multitude of auditors who have been trained that "Open Source" is "Freeware." And since "Freeware" is disallowed according to 8500.2, they then decide that "Open Source" is too. Nevermind that the Linux kernel is Open Source, no - they would pick and choose randomly which software we could and couldn't use. On a whim they'd suddenly decide mysql was no longer ok, no matter what evidence I could provide otherwise.

    G-d, how I miss that circus.

  16. Anything written by gov't employees is Pub. Domain by trygstad · · Score: 1

    Any software product written by government employees (not incorporating proprietary or OSS code) is one better than OSS--by law it's in the public domain. As long as the software is not classified anyone can use and modify the code. When I was the Admin Officer for a Navy helicopter squadron in San Diego in the late 80's, we used to get software from the local Navy Air Rework Facility, who had a code shop. They would always tell us we MUST pay them for the software (yes the military uses chargebacks just like any other business) but we would just laugh at them and tell them that their code was in the public domain--so it was free. Then they'd tell us we could not use it without paying for support and we'd tell 'em if we couldn't figure it out, we just wouldn't use it. They had not figured out that you can't charge money--even bongo bucks--for something that is free.

  17. Hmm, for us non-Americans... by Dice+Fivefold · · Score: 1

    When I contribute to OSS projects I like to think of it as doing some work for the good of the global community. What I don't like to think of it as, is to work for a foreign military for no pay. Actually I think i rather have foreign military spend some more on programmers and have less over to spend on bombs and soliders.

    Is there some alternative OSS license that don't allow the software to be used for military purposes?

    1. Re:Hmm, for us non-Americans... by davide+marney · · Score: 1

      Happily, since you released your contribution for free, your software that got used by military X also got used by military Y to nullify X.

      The two waves cancel each other out, leaving a calm space where your code lives on doing some good.

      --
      "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
    2. Re:Hmm, for us non-Americans... by risacher · · Score: 1

      No. At least not that conforms to the Open Source Definition, as published by the Open Source Initiative.

      The OSD specifically says:

      5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups

      The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.

      6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

      The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

      Which very explicitly means I can use your software inside my Baby-Mulching Machine (Google for it).

      --

      "The simplest solution is to ignore your dead children."

  18. Re: This is very even by Nuno+Sa · · Score: 1

    Maybe related to this in UK?
    Windows for Warships:
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/15/royal_navy_email_virus_outage/

  19. Re:Oh Jesus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    As you'll recall, Theo said some pretty nasty things about the US DoD in general and the current war in Iraq a couple of years ago. Not only did the DoD pull their donation for the OpenBSD hackathon, but all of BSD has been tarred with the same brush as a result. Suggesting *BSD at that level is a serious CLM these days.

  20. Federal Government can hold copyrights by dwheeler · · Score: 1

    No, the federal government can hold copyrights. US law says that whatever a government official does, as part of his official duties, is not subject to copyright. Today, most software developed for the US government is developed by contractors, who CAN hold copyrights, and they can assign those copyrights to the federal government. Some contracts even REQUIRE that the copyright be transferred to the US government.

    --
    - David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
  21. Government-developed unclass: Default OSS by dwheeler · · Score: 1

    I make a similar argument in "Government-developed Unclassified Software: Default release as Open Source Software" - if "we the people" paid to develop software, then by default "we the people" should get it. This was one of the proposals in the open government dialogue, and many people voted for it.

    I don't think that EVERY program funded by the government should be released to the public. If it's classified for good reason (say, its purpose is to explode a nuclear bomb), then I think it should definitely NOT get to the public. But if we made openness the DEFAULT, that would eliminate a lot of nonsense.

    --
    - David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
  22. Re:Anything written by gov't employees is Pub. Dom by risacher · · Score: 1

    I wrote this in 1997 in a comment file for my version of nenscript:

    These changes were made on my own time and on my own computer, but
    could easily be construed as being part of my official duties as an
    AWACS software programmer/analyst. If this is the case, then any
    changes that I made are a work of the US government and are not
    subject to copyright protection in the United States, and furthermore
    are provided, free of charge, with no warantee. If my changes are not
    legally part of my official duties, then I hereby disclaim all rights
    to the aforementioned changes and explicitly put them in the public
    domain, and furthermore disclaim any warantee, express or implied. I
    am not an intellectual property lawyer, so I'm not sure which of these
    situations applies. Either way, the changes are free to you.

    Daniel Risacher, 2Lt, USAF

    --

    "The simplest solution is to ignore your dead children."