Slashdot Mirror
Obama Administration Supports Recycling Code and Open Source
jones_supa writes: The Obama administration is seeking public comments on its open source policy. They have released for public comment a draft Federal Source Code policy to support improved access to custom software code. From the policy document: "This policy requires that, among other things: (1) new custom code whose development is paid for by the Federal Government be made available for reuse across Federal agencies; and (2) a portion of that new custom code be released to the public as Open Source Software (OSS)." Tony Scott, Federal CIO of the US government, mentioned one of the strengths of open source – cost saving. Scott wrote on the White House blog that the U.S. government "can save taxpayer dollars by avoiding duplicative custom software purchases and promote innovation and collaboration across Federal agencies."
... which means that, by definition, it cannot support open source software.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03...
Yes, they support recycling code...old code..related to encryption.
Sasha: Im all done with my loop, can I return to main()?
Barack: Now, sasha, what did i say about recycling code? check with Malia and see if you can use data from her constructor instead?
Malia: My constructor doesnt handle 32 bit integers, only 64. Sasha wont redo her booleans.
Michelle Barack: And for god sake use a pointer. we're not made of address space you know...
Sasha: Im dereferencing on line 14 dad! god! Malias stupid library doesnt support returning a linked list i think...
Barack: now --let me be clear here-- this, and i mean this code, isnt going to compile in Borland young ladies...
daughters: OMG DAD this compiles FINE in GCC!
Michelle: have you kids been hanging around uncle Richard and his GNU friends again...
Good people go to bed earlier.
Hooray?
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
They're very tech *CEO* friendly, however. The Obama Administration supports giving them all the H1B's they want and are quite happy to help them artificially drive down all tech salaries as a result.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Donald Trump has announced that he's going to make Open Source great again by putting the "SS" back in "OSS".
You are welcome on my lawn.
No. This proposal is already what federal law requires. But it's an election year so they are saying whatever will get votes.
I think we need to start granting H-1Bs for politicians. We don't seem to have enough politicians with the right skills.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
The Federal government pays a lot of money for research and development in a lot of areas, architecture, bridges, roads, jet engines, custom ASICs, etc etc. I used to design custom racks, brackets, conduit routing, power/heating/cooling systems for electronics. Think Humvees with quarter racks to a full mobile data center. It eventually got to the point where we were only doing something new/innovative every 3rd or 4th deal. Every other deal was use the bracket designed for A, the rack from B, the generator from C, etc. If we had to release those cad drawings we would have had no competitive edge. If they're saying code should be reusable across agencies and parts should be made open, when stop just at software?
By this logic, if I modded you down, I'd mod you up.
Another bin I have to haul out to the curbside every week. Worse yet, they'll make us sort it first. Perl goes in the green one, C++ in the blue (please remove and discard templates first), VB goes in with the compost.
Have gnu, will travel.
Not "sometimes". Always. It's not freedom otherwise.
There's no justifiable reason to disallow the distribution of binaries built from modified source code.
My code. My rules. That is all the justification I need.
If you don't like my rules, don't use my code.
Disallowing that isn't promoting freedom; it's eliminating freedom.
The GPL is about the freedom of the code.
with the BSD/MIT/whatever licenses the code is more Free to start with. The GPL makes sure that the code stays Free.
If you don't like the GPL, don't use it.
You just have to understand that different types of people appreciate different types of freedom.
Death has been proven to be 99% fatal in lab rats.
... which means that, by definition, it cannot support open source software.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03...
+4 Insightful? Look, government's position on backdoors is fundamentally wrong, as almost everyone who works in tech knows and almost nobody who works outside of tech understands or cares about. But that debate has nothing to do with open source.
The United States Government is the biggest purchaser on the planet, and we pay their bills. If they want to recycle code across their organization to save us money, great. If they want to open-source their unclassified software, great.
If you provide absolute freedom, then you also provide the freedom for some to take away freedoms from others. Releasing binaries without source is just such an act, you are using source which you had the freedom to receive and modify, but you are not extending that same level of freedom to others.
The GPL aims to ensure equality for everyone, which requires to impose an equal set of limits on everyone to avoid a select few from imposing their own set of limits on everyone else. Society works much the same way, you are free to do quite a lot but when it comes to things which harm others there are various laws to stop you.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
"We're talking about open source software here, however. That means relinquishing control over how other people use the code."
No, that wouldn't be open source software. That would be public domain software.
"your intent is to control others (that is, to remove their freedom to act as they choose)."
Not at all, others are perfectly free to act as they choose. But my labor and efforts are not free, time is the one truly limited resource humanity has and the only freedom you are granted with a BSD/MIT license vs the GPL is the freedom to save yours at the expense of mine while selfishly refusing to pass that benefit along.