The US Department Of Defense Announces An Open Source Code Repository (defense.gov)

"The Pentagon is the latest government entity to join the open-source movement," writes NextGov. An anonymous reader quotes their report: The Defense Department this week launched Code.mil, a public site that will eventually showcase unclassified code written by federal employees. Citizens will be able to use that code for personal and public projects... The Defense Department's Digital Service team, whose members are recruited for short-term stints from companies including Google and Netflix, will be the first to host its code on the site once the agreement is finalized... "This is a direct avenue for the department to tap into a worldwide community of developers to collectively speed up and strengthen the software development process," a DOD post announcing the initiative said. The Pentagon also aims to find software developers and "make connections in support of DOD programs that ultimately service our national security."
Interestingly, there's no copyright protections on code written by federal employees, according to U.S. (and some international) laws, according to the site. "This can make it hard to attach an open source license to our code, and our team here at Defense Digital Service wants to find a solution. You can submit a public comment by opening a GitHub issue on this repository before we finalize the agreement at the end of March."

Comments

What's wrong with public domain code?

[Anonymous Coward]

Stallman may argue that you need to make sure the code is free in the future, but I'd settle for the code being free now.

Re:What's wrong with public domain code?

[Anonymous Coward]

Stallman wants to protect the end users. Public domain and the BSD-style licenses help the developers but without built-in protection for the end users. Commercial developers prefer public domain first and BSD-style licensing second when grabbing code.

Personally, I prefer to run GPL software (ex. Linux) because I like having access to the code of everything on my computer. But I write close-sourced software only that may include in first priority public domain and in second priority BSD source code ;)

Re:What's wrong with public domain code?

[Anonymous Coward]

Stallman is rightly concerned about the DoD developing and/or weaponizing material like this.

Re:What's wrong with public domain code?

[Anonymous Coward]

Stallman's approach, especially with the newer AGPL versions makes sense if you are a company. You know that if your rivals start to use your code, then you get back their improvements. However I don't think that's enough here.

Who's thinking of the source code rights of the targets? You are flying along in an SU-34, innocently bombing Turkmen babies and you get blown up without even knowing that the code that killed you or having the right to suggest improvements and fixes. I want to suggest a new AAGPL where, in jets with a compatible glass cockpit or Head Up Display a message will pop up:

You have been targeted by an ARAM-72 missile running the latest Air Air Respose AARA (AARA) code. This code in this missile is licensed under the GNU AAGPL license (Air to Air General Public License). Unlike other Military licenses which attempt to kill you without warning, this license is designed to ensure your Freedom under attack. Do you want to:

• a) check out the source code from Savannah and start editing in Emacs using an eye controlled keyboard.
• b) attempt futile evasive manoeuvres (this will wish you luck and return you to flight command mode).
• c) eject (n.b. please check the bugs list; you may have to patch first for compatibility with your hardware).

A full copy of the AAGPL software license should be found just behind the explosive charge of the missile targeting you. If you did not receive it or wish to read it before impact then please download it from the Free Military Software Foundation website (http://fmsf.org).

Only once we have this will we truly have Free Military Software. Hostile governments will work together, like competing corporations united by the AGPL, delivering the best possible experience for all their Targets.

Re: What's wrong with public domain code?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't you just include that in the clickwrap license accepted by the crew during pre-flight checks?

Re:What's wrong with public domain code?

[Anonymous Coward]

Quote: "will be able to use that code for personal and public projects"
then the backdoors will automatically be added to that code.

Re: What's wrong with public domain code?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't you just include that in the clickwrap license accepted by the crew during pre-flight checks?

Sure, that could be useful if there are two sides and they can both come to a sensible collaboration agreement before the engagement takes place. You could see the two sides maybe setting up a server hosted at the UN so that they can share code during the conflict. Even so I'm not sure how you would deal with patent exclusion causes, if, for example, one of the pilots adds a new feature to his missiles after leaving base.

However imagine cases where you have no idea beforehand who it is that's going to attack you? E.g. you are going out in a passenger 777 and just expecting to get from Japan to Chile. You have just started tucking into your Tempura when there's a sneak Dutch attack demanding their food rights back. Only inflight license acceptance is going to give the targets the software rights they need.

Re:What's wrong with public domain code?

[djinn6]

This.

The GPL prevents a company from taking open source software developed by enthusiasts, making a few small changes, then charging for it. But here, the government developed the software by charging (in the form of taxes) both individuals and businesses. It makes sense that the code they create should be free to use by everyone. Attaching something like the GPL to it would mean lots of businesses can't use the code without also open-sourcing their own proprietary code.

Re:What's wrong with public domain code?

[sumdumass]

Do you know how code works?

You will be able to see and detect changes and determine what they do. But you cannot add back doors to the code in my possession simply by putting it on a website that I at one time in the past - pulled the code from.

If I take a piece of code, add to it, then use it, there is no reason to return to the original code other than to see what changes there are and determine if I want to incorporate those changes into my version of the program. All it takes is a diff to see whats been added. If you cannot understand what was added, you probably won't be using the code and using someone else version of it anyways. but back doors being added should be spotted quickly and easily if people are actually using the code.

Re:What's wrong with public domain code?

[swillden]

Stallman may argue that you need to make sure the code is free in the future, but I'd settle for the code being free now.

I don't see any reason they shouldn't do both. They should release it under a good copyleft license, but note on their repository that all source code from the DoD is in the public domain. Those who wish to take the federal code and carefully verify that no non-federal contributions have been added (or who are willing to strip out all of the non-federal code) can use it in whatever way they like, since it's in the public domain. Contributions by others, however, will by default be owned by the contributor but licensed under the copyleft license. In the event someone uses their code in a way that violates the license, they'll have standing to sue for infringement, though the DoD will not.

Re:What's wrong with public domain code?

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL does not prevent someone from charging. I can take GPL software, make trivial modifications - or even no modifications at all - and charge for it. Of course I have to abide by the GPL, so there will be ways people can get the stuff without paying me. But that won't necessarily be as easy. As in:

Use git to get code for free. Decide on some version from the git repository. Then compile, deal with compile failures due to different compiler version/libraries, install, deal with install failures due to you not using exactly the same distro/versions as me, and then spend hours getting the config files just right.

Or you can pay me and get a precompiled package that fits your particular distro and just works with no further hassle 5 minutes after buying. And you get some support as well - and a warranty.

The DIY folks go for the first alternative - the businesses for the second. Nothing wrong in selling GPL stuff for money.

Re:What's wrong with public domain code?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about if someone wants a new feature that was added to the code but doesn't review very change in the past 5 years to verify no other changes may have added some vulnerability/back door.
Odds are if you download a recent version of software that you haven't kept up to date with, you wont easily understand all the changes that have gone into every revision, nor will you spend the time to discover all of them. You will probably review the changes made for that feature you but not every single change in every single file.

Re:What's wrong with public domain code?

[Anonymous Coward]

Personal vitriol aside, I'm always tickled when I read this and recall the stories told to me by someone who hosted stallman for a weekend. I hope never to accomplish so much as to have to endure his presense.

https://libreboot.org/why-not-gnu/

#0: The GNU project is funded by the Free Software Foundation

This page explains why that is a bad thing.
#1: You lose control over your project

Libreboot witnessed this when it left GNU. The GNU project resisted it. Had libreboot stayed and integrated with GNU even more, then it would have been very difficult to leave. Thankfully, the GNU project did not yet have much influence over libreboot, and most of the infrastructure for it was still on libreboot.org, outside of the control of the GNU project. The only GNU infrastructure used were mailing lists, which are easy to replace.

GNU can appoint new maintainers for any program that is part of it, even against your will. If you disagree with GNU practises and want to do things different, there's the possibility that you can simply be removed and replaced as maintainer of your project, even if you are the founder and main developer.

RMS will take credit for your work, on behalf of the GNU project, and will try to assert authority by asking for features which you may not want to implement. RMS will further attempt to dictate how and when releases should occur.

If the GNU project or FSF does something which you disagree with, and you want to withdraw your project, they will try to claim that the project is theirs, and that you are now forking your own project. There are no formal procedures for a project to leave GNU, if a project chooses this path. By joining GNU, you are relinquishing *all* control over your project. - The only reason Libreboot successfully left GNU was because we got out before it was too late.

The GNU project is extremely undemocratic. Individual projects have very little say over it, and the FSF is very much the same. All you are doing by putting your program in GNU, is to help the organisation grow. They do not care about you personally and only care about your project.
#2: GNU Non-free Documentation License

The GNU Free Documentation License is the main license recommended for documentation by the GNU project. This license is non-free, because it allows for so-called invariant sections to be added to your documentation which cannot be modified or deleted without express permission from the copyright holder of that invariant section.

The GNU project mandates that all projects joining it must use this license. The Libreboot project recommends avoiding this license at all costs, and has since switched back to Creative Commons for all documentation.

The libreboot project was always opposed to the GFDL, but compromised since this was one of the conditions for joining GNU. At the time, this was wrongly identified as an acceptable compromise.
#3: TexInfo

TexInfo is a dead markup language used by most GNU programs, for documentation. Most modern projects do not use it, preferring languages like markdown instead. The GNU project still insists on using this bizarre, esoteric language.

This was one of the areas where libreboot also compromised when joining GNU, but has since switched to alternative formats.
#4: The FSF and GNU project is a cult

There is a huge cult of personality around Richard Stallman, which you may or may not want your project to be associated with.

Many - a lot of - FSF followers are fanatical, to the point of extremism. Your project will become associated with all of this, even if you personally dislike Richard Stallman.

Leah witnessed this with libreboot, despite having met Richard several times and finding him contemptible as a human being, for various reasons, even if the free software philosophy is morally correct.

Here is an example: https://web.archive.org/web/20161101101115/https://stallman.org/archives/2016-sep-dec.html#31_October_2016_%28Down%27s_syndrome%29
In thi

Re:What's wrong with public domain code?

[sumdumass]

You are talking about one person of hundreds or perhaps thousands. If the code is getting updated, someone who uses it will wonder what X- added last week does and will it impact his use of the code. You can be the 30,000th person 5 years later to use the code and if you can use google, you can find someone sounding the alarm. This code will be scrutinized very well considering where it came from and the already skeptical approach so many people are taking with it..

Are our lawyers really this clueless?

[darthsilun]

I'm willing to accept that it probably can't be copyrighted.
That doesn't mean you can't put a license on it. And there are plenty of licenses to choose from. One must be pretty close to suitable.

Re:Are our lawyers really this clueless?

[pem]

What's the point of an unenforceable license?

Isn't there already enough disdain for stupid laws and red tape?

Re:Are our lawyers really this clueless?

[Junta]

License is laying out the terms under which you won't get in legal trouble copyright wise.

Without copyright protection, a license makes no sense, because it's impossible to permit or restrict copying and redistribution.

Re:Are our lawyers really this clueless?

[Anubis IV]

I'm willing to accept that it probably can't be copyrighted.

That doesn't mean you can't put a license on it. And there are plenty of licenses to choose from. One must be pretty close to suitable.

There's neither a need for a license, nor would a license have any meaning in this context. The whole purpose of a license is to disclaim or enumerate the rights being retained by the copyright holder. If the works belongs to the public domain, a license has no meaning and any attempt to attach a license would be an attempt to (fraudulently) assert rights that only belong to the owner of the material, of which there is none.

Setting those concerns aside, there are a few licenses that approximate to varying degrees the rights provided by public domain works (e.g. MIT or BSD), but attaching them to these documents to describe the rights of users would be like saying that the UN charter is the official document Americans should use to understand their right to free speech, rather than the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. The laws regarding works in the public domain would still be the governing rules here, rather than whatever license they attached, so it makes no sense to attach a license in the first place.

Re:Are our lawyers really this clueless?

[grep -v '.*' *]

Isn't there already enough disdain for stupid laws and red tape?

FTFY: Isn't there enough stupid laws and red tape?
Congress: NO.

We get paid to make laws and try very hard to do both. Especially the former. Well, the latter too. But the former -- don't forget the former. NEVER forger the former.

----
Then again, Trump wants to "remove two laws for every new law". Let's hope that none of them are in the "Too Stupid To Die" category. It may fail horribly (-2 for +1) but at least it's an attempt.

But then again, "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." [Ie, what the actual ramifications are.] So then why have experts if you aren't going to listen to them? Or is it because you've got disagreeing experts?

Re: Are our lawyers really this clueless?

[bill_mcgonigle]

No kidding. They could try asking nicely. Heh, the government asking nicely.

Re: Are our lawyers really this clueless?

[Anonymous Coward]

Use the First Amendment? Not thanks to the Supreme Court.

You need to consider six or more Court decisions.

Re:Are our lawyers really this clueless?

[Aighearach]

In the sense of them using the associated contract against you, that is true; they can't really force you to agree to it.

But if you're the one taking some legal action against them regarding the code, then the existence of the contract may or may not make a difference, depending on details.

So the point is defense. Actually, defense is what the Department of Defense does, so it should be no surprise.

But note that there is no red tape, just a declaration of claimed facts.

Re:Are our lawyers really this clueless?

[pem]

just a declaration of claimed facts.

That's a reasonable thing to do, of course, but that's a disclaimer, not a license.

Re:Are our lawyers really this clueless?

[Aighearach]

It doesn't claim to be a license.

It says, if you're in a country where copyright doesn't apply then there is a contract enforcing the same conditions as the license would. And if you're in a country where copyright does apply, then it applies as a copyright license.

In the US it is public domain but there is a contract attached to the original source. So if you actually downloaded it from them, the contract probably applies. If "open source" brings it to you by some other means, then probably it does not.

The details of the license will just be a normal open source license, so it won't actually matter at all.

Re:Are our lawyers really this clueless?

[pem]

It says, if you're in a country where copyright doesn't apply then there is a contract enforcing the same conditions as the license would.

Except that doesn't apply in the U.S. Copyright 101 (and a zillion court rulings) say that you can't use a contract to do copyright-type things -- unless you actually have a copyright.

Re:Are our lawyers really this clueless?

[Aighearach]

It doesn't. If you understood that it is open source, then you'd understand that the contract doesn't do any "copyright-type things."

Re:Are our lawyers really this clueless?

[pem]

WTF are you talking about, Willis? Open source licenses are only effective because of copyright (and patent, in some cases).

If you tell someone that there's no warranty, that's a disclaimer. No license or contract required, and the disclaimer may or may not protect you, but that's another issue.

If you tell someone "you can only do 'x' with this" then you have to have a right to create that restriction. If we're discussing tangible property, the right is usually pretty obvious, e.g. you own the property. If we're discussing intangible property, then there are very few valid rights that allow imposition of restrictions, such as copyright or trade secret. In the case of true open source, trade secrets are pretty much non-starters, so that basically leaves copyright.

Without a valid right to impose a restriction, the restriction is void and unenforceable.

Re:Are our lawyers really this clueless?

[Aighearach]

Try thinking, "Willis." There is no mystery in it. If you didn't understand it, don't press reply, just re-read it and try harder.

Re:Are our lawyers really this clueless?

[pem]

Given that the DOD github site has now been updated to show they're no longer trying to enforce a license on people who download and use the code, I don't think I'm the clueless one here.

Re:Are our lawyers really this clueless?

[Aighearach]

You might still be, the original said that it would be updated after receiving public feedback. By now they've received that feedback.

Re: Are our lawyers really this clueless?

[pem]

Way to deflect from your own supercilious ignorance, Willis.

Re: Are our lawyers really this clueless?

[Aighearach]

You do not demonstrate comprehension with that statement.

Also, why the racist "Willis" pejorative? Are you saying that the reason you think I'm ignorance, even though you didn't comprehend the flow of the conversation and got lost in the middle, is because of my hair? Or was it my lips?

Re: Are our lawyers really this clueless?

[pem]

I suppose "Willis" is racist in the eye of the beholder, if the beholder thinks that Diff'rent Strokes is racist. I think we're done here; I certainly am.

Skynet

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mean that Skynet will become sentient and trigger a nuclear holocaust sooner and be more efficient and effective at annihilating humans because it's community driven & free and open source?

Re:Skynet

[Anonymous Coward]

It means Linux is coming to fucking kill you.

Re:Skynet

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it means that there will be dozens of half finished forks of skynet each with their own ideas on how to kill all humans. The killer robots will divide into camps and fight between themselves about text editors, desktop environments, init systems, and the definition of "gamergate".

Worthless

[Anonymous Coward]

The overwhelming majority of government code is written by contractors who try their damndest to keep it closed source / proprietary / hidden-from-view.

WTFPL for two reasons

[raymorris]

It could be released under the WTFPL and there are two big reasons to do so that I can think of. Before going into the reasons, here is the text of the WTFPL:

----
DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
                                        Version 2, December 2004

  Copyright (C) 2004 Sam Hocevar

  Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified
  copies of this license document, and changing this license is allowed as long
  as the name is changed.

                        DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
      TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION

    0. You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO.
-----

Off the top of my head, there are two or three big reasons to do that:

1) Some countries, and international treaties, have no concept of "public domain". So public domain is not sufficient for projects that may involve people, including users, outside of the US.

2) Even in the US, copyright "all rights resrved" is the default - if you find some code floating around, with no license or similar statement, you can't legally copy it. So you need at least a statement disclaiming copyright attached to the code.

3) Related to number 2, companies and organized projects are set up to keep track of the license for code they might use, in order to a) avoid violating the license and b) be able to prove to an auditor or whomever that they do have the right to distribute the code.

The WTFPL, which is essentially a disclaimer of copyright, but written in the form of a one-sentence license, addresses all of those issues. It allows you to have a license, as expected by international law and organization policy, without putting any restrictions on the code whatsoever.

No such thing in international law. Morris Public

[raymorris]

Some countries and international copyright treaties have no concept of "public domain". Other countries use those words to mean something else. The Morris Public License allows users to do anything they want with the code. Morris PL would therefore be suitable:

Morris Public License Version 1.0

1) Authorization to copy, modify, and distribute

Any person, may copy, modify, distribute, or otherwise use the work in any form, without copyright restriction of any kind. All copy rights are hereby disclaimed.

2) Disclamer of warranties
THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM âoeAS ISâ WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

What about the NSA?

[Gravis Zero]

"This is a direct avenue for the department to tap into a worldwide community of developers to collectively speed up and strengthen the software development process,"

Perhaps you should ask the NSA to help strengthen your software. What? They are keeping exploits secret to use a weapons? Well, maybe you should do something about it!

Drone code please!

[AndyKron]

I want the code for those swarming drones I saw on the YouTuber.

Re:No such thing in international law. Morris Publ

[sumdumass]

It would still need a statement of origination of some sort implying copyright or ineligibility for others to copyright it to some degree.

  Otherwise, I could take the code, claim copyright, then go back and sue everyone else who mistakenly used it. Perhaps I can convince a judge I own the copyright perhaps not. Copyright is an artificial right granted by law that doesn't make exceptions for when you thought you were legally in the clear because someone else gave you permission. It is entirely possible people would rather pay a royalty than fight the claim. It is how trolls survive.

Anyone using it can point to the Morris Public Lic

[raymorris]

I could *claim* copyright to the Mac OS or Microsoft Windows, or to your post. I could sue you right now for using Windows or Mac or whatever you're using - I'd just lose since I didn't write either of those operating systems.

Anyone can claim anything they want, and there is no way to stop people from making stupid claims. The thing is, they'd need to *prove* their claims or at very least convince people the claim has some likelihood of being proven.

Can you give me an example of some wording you think should be added, which will somehow prevent frivolous claims?

  * I started to use Apache and Linux as my examples, saying "I could -claim- copyright to Apache or to Linux, but since I didn't write them ..." Then I realized I actually -do- have copyrights, because I have contributed code. Many years ago I asserted my Apache copyright against a major web hosting company, demanding that they provide the source package for the exact version they were distributing on servers. This was for the dev headers, so people could compile Apache modules on and for the servers.

Old News

[minstrelmike]

I thought there was already a repository of all American D.O.D. code. We just can't access it because it's behind the Great Firewall of China.

Re:Anyone using it can point to the Morris Public

[sumdumass]

Some wording-

"The code represented here is the sole property in origination of acts commissioned by the United States government and thereby not owned or copyrighted by anyone else at the time of original posting unless documented within the code listed."

Now the difference between this type of code with your license verses windows or mac or anything else is that they have already asserted copyright over the works in question. All we have at this government site is works claimed not to be copyright-able or public domain in which you couldn't attach a license to legally without otherwise expressing ownership in some way. Declaring it's origination as a public domain stops anyone from copyrighting or trying to and claiming to be the originator of the code (to sneak in a copyright in a foreign land that by treaty could be asserted). Or in other words, it is completely different to claim I own something you have already copyrighted than it is to assert a copyright on something without a copyright yet. So with international copyright rules (even US rules), an implied copyright is granted at origination of the work and this would specify the origination preempting others from trying to do so.

In other news

[Anonymous Coward]

... collectively speed up and strengthen the software development process ...

US DoD taps into free labour services, meaning PMCs and other defense contractors can raise prices to buy more hookers and blow.

The free software market already has navigation, office productivity (notes presentation, spreadsheet, word processor, database, document journalling, web browser, email/calendar, bookkeeping), CRM, sales and inventory software. The DoD can maybe release an ERP version of those (Although several attempts to create an DoD ERP have failed). Because no-one is getting paid to use free software, no-one will be an expert in it (*), so no-one will implement the ERP version in their company.

*: People paid to configure commercial software are rarely experts but in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

Couldn't hurt to include that

[raymorris]

I see what you mean, and I don't see any reason to *not* include similar language. Accounting for contributions, even small patches, from non-government sources will probably require some small change to the wording, but that's no big deal. Anyway you'd state that the code as published there is published by or on behalf of the original authors, who disclaim any rights under copyright law.

Re:Anyone using it can point to the Morris Public

[feenberg]

Well, you could take public domain software, modify it, and claim copyright on the modified version. It wouldn't prevent anyone from using the original, but it would annoy Stallman because you would not be required to "give back" anything. Could DoD host a GPL program on its website? Of course, I am sure they already do on the national laboratories websites.

Hearts and minds

[AHuxley]

The US mil faced the same issues after ww2 in 1945 Germany.
What to do with all the people wondering around/captured by the US mil in 1945 Germany with skills that the French, UK, Soviet Union, nations in South America showed great interest in.
The US had the option in 1945 to walk away from all German science, to convict a lot of evil people in Germany for what they did during ww2 or fund what was Operation Paperclip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... .
The thinking in the US gov/mil on open source and its integration with US gov contractors is complex.
The US mil has a few options:
Ban open source at a gov/mil level as it is of no use to contractors and their sale of services to the US gov/mil. Fully support US contractors and their efforts to find US staff to work on any US gov/mil project.
Ignore open source and risk other nations attracting some US developers for unexpected dual use projects. The risk of an open source gap. A brain drain to nations that support open source and make it trendy, safe, fun.... and offer full funding.
The suggestion that a full security clearance to keep working on a dual use project in the USA might be needed?
A smart person in the USA is then lured to another nation that does not demand a security clearance and is very happy to see the complex "open source" project funded?
Attract open source code talent into the US gov/mil and have some oversight and say in the direction dual use projects.
The total funding of developers and staff can sway an open source project or even slow or halt a dual use project in interesting ways.
Or just have US mil/gov funding hidden by a charity or foundation with lots of grants. Staff can then be fully funded without direct links to decades of US gov/mil funding.
For that open source has to be accepted within the US mil/gov.
A bit like the way the US gov funded and always looks after US crypto studies :)
Efforts by the GCHQ with Linux could allow the UK to be less dependant on the NSA long term.
Better to have the GCHQ asking for NSA help with any and all "open source" efforts rather than a US gov ban on open source allowing the UK to fund its own projects without NSA advice, help and guidance.

How about the BSD 2-Clause License?

[cpghost]

When the University of Berkeley wanted to release its Unix distribution, they also had the problem of finding a suitable permissible license, without falling into the extreme of Public Domain, which, as others have rightfully observed, isn't always recognized internationally. So they invented the beautiful BSD license. This license had a couple of clauses, that ultimately went down to just two now. How about the DoD releasing their stuff under the 2-Clause BSD License as well? Short, sweet, crisp, neutral, developer-friendly, and free of all ideology and cruft. I know, that's taking side in an open debate, and opening a can of worms, but seriously, for government-funded work, that may really be like U. Berkeley's code the best option.

forge.mil

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get it. so, how is this different than forge.mil ?

Re: forge.mil

[Anonymous Coward]

Forge.mil is ran by DISA. They don't do anything without large amounts of money. It is not open source, you have to be government to use it. Github is much easier to use in so many ways.

Use CC0

[sidthegeek]

They should use the Creative Commons Zero copyright waiver, as it is designed for releasing copyright without regard to specific jurisdiction. The full legal text of the license (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode) contains both a copyright waiver and a fully-permissive license. This way, in case the copyright waiver is found legally unenforceable or invalid, the fully-permissive license kicks in and protects the Affirmer (person who applied the license to the work) and licensee (person using the work). (It protects the Affirmer by ensuring the work stays in the public domain (his successors can't have all rights to the work restored, as has happened in several cases before), and it protects the licensee from the same potential problem.

Meanwhile in the UK...

[Hephaestus]

It's really great that the US DoD are doing this; but it should be noted that the UK MOD have been doing exactly this for some time now...

See: https://github.com/dstl/

Eventually, huh?

[PJ6]

How about a pull request?

As in, pull my finger.

Re:Donald Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you should just leave....

You might find harmony somewhere like a Parisian suburb...or a small apartment in Mexico City...or downtown Beirut.