Slashdot Mirror


US Military Settles Software Piracy Claims For $50M

Rambo Tribble writes "The BBC reports that the U. S. government has agreed to pay software maker Apptricity $50 million to settle claims that the U.S. Army pirated thousands of copies of the firm's provisioning software. The report indicates 500 licensed copies were sold, but it came to light an army official had mentioned that 'thousands' of devices were running the software." $50 million in tax money could have paid for a whole lot of open source software development, instead.

23 of 127 comments (clear)

  1. Government Development by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    $50 million could have paid for a whole lot of private sector open source software development.

    If the military had spent the money on development, they might have finished the request for proposals before running out of funding...

    1. Re:Government Development by binarylarry · · Score: 2

      Yeah but open source projects don't give principals free vacations, cars and other bennies.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    2. Re:Government Development by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Informative

      they also require the source code be distributed, so the program is essentially gifted to the US army's enemies...

      I don't know of a single OSS license that requires distribution of source to anybody except recipients of binary versions (who, one hopes, the Pentagon would check for friendliness before sending software to, not that we have a terribly good track record on that...) It's commonly more widely distributed than that, for convenience or philanthropic reasons; but it would be perfectly doable to keep even an aggressively GPLed project in-house/among close collaborators only, with the only caveat being that you'd need to be using only LGPL or less encumbered external components.

    3. Re:Government Development by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      If the software is developed for the US Government (USG), then the terms of the GPL don't really even apply: the GPL requires you to distribute (or make available) the source code to everyone you distribute binaries to. Well, if you're only distributing binaries to yourself, then there's nothing to do. So if the USG doesn't distribute the binaries to anyone else outside the government, then they don't have to distribute source code anywhere.

    4. Re:Government Development by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 3, Informative

      Software (and any other copyrightable work) developed directly by an employee of the US Government is, unless it qualifies to be secret, required to be released into the Public Domain, which means that you can't even attach the limited restrictions of a permissive/promiscuous license like BSD to it.

    5. Re:Government Development by BitZtream · · Score: 2

      $50 million could have paid for a whole lot of private sector open source software development.

      Unlikely that it would have bought an equally useful product.

      $50 million isn't that many employees really, well less than 500. Those 500 people are not going to create software of the same level of quality (assuming the commercial software isn't complete shit) with the same level of experience thrown in as the company who's been doing it for years.

      There is FAR more to writing software than just lines of code, but unfortunately only a few projects in the OSS world actually understand that, and pretty much all of you OSS fanboys totally fail to understand it.

      If there was an existing OSS project that filled the roles, didn't suck, and had been around for the past 10 years with MAJOR deployments ... then the $50mil might have been better spent spending on OSS ... MAYBE, if you could find someone to manage the project properly. But since there is nothing out there that comes anywhere near matching this functionality, starting from scratch with OSS is a fucking stupid idea unless your sole goal is to get rid of the commercial software.

      The governments job is not to promote open source, its to use my money efficiently. Wasting it starting a brand new OSS project that would almost certainly suck since its a brand new product with no experience would be exactly the opposite of what I want them to do.

      Use OSS when it makes sense, don't try to shoe horn it into everything because you have this retarded hippie idea that its the solution to all the worlds problems.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  2. Open Source Troll much? by Mitsoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    it could have also paid for the software... and probably be a lot cheaper then $50 million on open source...

    I only say this because there is an obvious 'zomg go open source' vibe to the post... Obviously, it would be nice id governments threw money at open source software development, but then o then taxpayers would probably complain since it doesn't directly benefit them in a way their minds can comprehend

    1. Re:Open Source Troll much? by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

      But without a clear singular direction you end up with a jack of all trades but a master of none.

    2. Re:Open Source Troll much? by sjwt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Spoken like someone who has never dealt with one Government department, let alone two.

      Its *much* worse when you let them get involved in the development, Billions of $ wasted on programs that don't do what they should.

      Here is a nice list of Billions $ in failed software projects.

      http://defense.about.com/od/prodinnovate/a/Government-Software-Project-Failures.htm

      And a nice little one close to home for me, 8 years and 1.25 Billion $ on payroll software.. Thanks IBM

      http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/health-payroll-costs-to-hit-125-billion-20120606-1zvub.html

      --
      You have 5 Moderator Points!
      Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
  3. Simply not true by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Informative

    $50 million in tax money could have paid for a whole lot of open source software development, instead.

    Bullshit. A government designed website cost over $600 million, for $50 million you only get the committee that argues about the design, and only for a year or so.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:Simply not true by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're an idiot if you don't think Obama is a crony capitalist. Almost every US politician, including Chris Christie, is a crony capitalist (except maybe Bernie Sanders). Obama is not special or different.

      As for the far right, they believe he's a Nazi, commie, Muslim, or atheist, not all at the same time. The people on the far right are not a single person; they're different people who all have different opinions and beliefs, as hard as that might be for you to understand.

  4. ha? by superwiz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    $50 million in tax money could have paid for a whole lot of open source software development, instead.

    How would that not be spending tax dollars to compete with private industry? What kind of an ass backwards priority system does this poster have? Take money away from honest citizens at gun point and give this money to their competition? How is this even remotely ethical?

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    1. Re:ha? by superwiz · · Score: 2

      Anything government does is away from some private sector people

      No, not everything. There is no private army. There is no private national highway system. There is plenty of things that the government can do that cannot be done by the private industry. But why compete with the private industry while taxing it? That's just so damn obnoxious.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  5. Goverment by lapm · · Score: 2

    Its the government, what did you expect :P Government does everything in way its most expensive as possible.

  6. Re:Oh man by Goody · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think timothy added the FOSS douchebag statement, not the submitter.

    --
    Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
  7. Re:Ah Ha! by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2

    I doubt the Army official knew they were pirated.

    I don't believe this.

    The Army has a professional IT program. Everyone from the commanders down to the bottom have to do CBT's and attend briefings on this subject.

    The grunts using the apps might have no clue what / when / where the software was loaded, but the officers from the butter-bars on up certainly did.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  8. buy vs. build by Tom · · Score: 2

    $50 million in tax money could have paid for a whole lot of open source software development, instead.

    Maybe, but then again maybe they needed something that works today, so funding development of something that will work in two years simply wasn't an option? Not everything in this world is a conspiracy, you know?

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:buy vs. build by Tom · · Score: 2

      There's open source alternatives for just about anything you can think of.

      Wrong.

      There are an incredible number of incredibly cool Free Software projects. That doesn't mean they cover everything, because that is just a lie.

      I founded a small company two years ago. There is no Free Software on the market that could handle my finance and business administration. I looked really hard.

      One of the products of my company is a piece of software that also doesn't exist as Free Software, nor does anything even close to it.

      And let's not even get started about the whole games area where despite laudable amateur efforts, even the best Free Software games are just pathetic amateurish half-done crap compared to the AAA titles.

      It is similar in the area of business software. There's no Free Software to control your assembly line. There's no Free Software to run your HR, or to do the heavy lifting for a corporate financial statement.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  9. Cutbacks so no site licenses? by deviated_prevert · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Most likely what happened is the US Military bought the software, which may or may not be the best solution but clearly it was the most viable software solution available suited for the specific needs of modern arm forces logistics. Then what happened is the user seat requirements outstripped the original purchase numbers. BECAUSE THE FRIGGIN' SOFTWARE is written on a per seat basis and most likely a timed rental lease. And this is why the distribution became a warez situation.

    EVERYBODY wants to pull a Microsoft and create something that becomes a cash cow that feeds them beyond the actual value of the original creation, is timed to expire and cause the users to send more cash.

    Now we complicate the situation with the recent cutbacks in military funding for procurement of frills like this software. Someone with a hand on the accounting made the decision that increasing the site license numbers was not financially justified. This in turn caused the military IT person(s) responsible for deployment of this software to but heads with staff that was lower down than the pencil necks that cut their procurement budgets. So most likely some Colonel somewhere reamed out the poor IT staff so bad about not having the rights to deploy more copies without the budget that they just turned a blind eye and handed out copies instead of facing some Colonel Blowhard every time Lieutenant Hothead complained about the IT department not letting them accomplish their mission.

    --
    This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
  10. Re:Oh man by rtb61 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Every government software expenditure on software licences has something to do with the alternate, the development of a free open source software solution. Where the purchase of software licences exceeds the cost of direct development of the software solution, which can then be made available to the public for free those people who paid for the development, then that is money blatantly thrown away and brings to immediate mind, what was the corruption in the process that allowed that poor decision. The only douchebag thing going on is why tax payer dollars are continually being used to favour a few with bloated profits from licensed software solutions whilst the majority miss out on any benefit from free open source solutions.

    Government software solutions should always favour open source for two reasons. One it means direct payment to local developers for initialising and customising those solutions, whether as direct salary payments, contracts and or prizes for specific solutions and, two of course those solutions now become available to the tax paying public for free as they have already have paid for them.

    So yeah, every time the government spends money on software licences it is money lost to the public for no benefit to the public and this has 'EVERYTHING TO DO' with the future investment of taxpayer dollars in software and should be mentioned 'EACH AND EVERY TIME' a story comes up about the government spending money on software licences rather than investing in free open source software, local developers and future public accessibility to that software.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  11. Re:Oh man by AIphaWolf_HK · · Score: 2

    Bullshit. Argue your point or shut the fuck up. Heh.

  12. Consistency would be great by aiadot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Random teenager downloads enough music CDs to fill his iPod -> millions in damage representing the sum of the full price of each song

    US government downloads software on more devices it's licensed to -> get's a 90% discount in the fine and not even a warning

  13. Named user licensing by mysidia · · Score: 2

    Apptricity later estimated that 9,000 users were accessing the program, in addition to the 500 that had been paid for.

    This is equivalent to Microsoft claiming you pirated windows server, because you only bought 500 CALs, but your organization has 9000 employees.

    Through some bit of magic, they say you get this license thingie, that you have to permanently assign to a specific piece of flesh and blood ---- no matter how many computers you have running the software; or how many employees you have on the job at a particular moment -- you don't count those: you count the total number of people your organization hired.

    50 million divided by 8500 is close to $6000 per employee.

    I would call that predatory + difficult to comply with licensing, not "piracy" --- the folks making out like bandits here is the software company.

    I'm sure a fraction of the 50 million could have funded a contractor to build the product, and provide the military the rights to the software --- and unlimited, perpetual licenses.