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.

11 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 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.

    2. 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.

  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 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.
  5. 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/ .
  6. 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
  7. 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