Navitaire appears to be a subsidiary of Accenture. Having experienced firsthand the inability of Accenture to develop quality applications in a timely manner and on a decent budget, I am not surprised that Easy Jet kicked them out.
To steal from Red Dwarf: "If a job is worth doing well, hire someone competent. If it is not worth doing at all but you need to spend lots of money, hire Accenture."
If you break into someone's house, telling him after the fact how yo got in does not automatically pardon you from the crime...
Had Adrian simply notified the New York Times in a timely manner about the open proxy servers, he would have been fine and probably accomplished his mission.
Instead, he took his time cracking the system, widening the holes so to speak, and then went to a reporter(!), of all people.
There is nothing inherently wrong with his desire to improve security. There is nothing wrong with him looking around the public spaces on the internet for chinks. What was wrong was that he failed to tell the people maintaining the chinks directly about them, widened them until he got at valuable data, didn't tell the affected people about the data he had received, but then went to a third party and told them about the wanging big hole he had made. I'm sure he views himself as a knight in shining armor, but in this matter he behaved like a publicity-seeking self-promoter.
Yes, shame on the NYT for misconfiguring their systems, but even more shame on Adrian for doing something so illegal and counterproductive.
It does not matter if a person thinks he's a good guy, he still does not have carte blanche to do whatever he wishes.
You bring up some good points, however I feel they are minor drawbacks.
For example, in the case of the businessman concerned that his people want to unionize. If he really wants to see where his people go, h can now hire a prvate investigator. In fact, he's much more likely to hire the investigator than to sit around watching the webcam since he's got other things to do with his itme.
Similarly concerning stalking: A stalker sitting at home who never interacts with the stalkee does not matter, since the stalkee does not knwo that they even exist.
The stalker who uses the web to gather personal info and then decides to pay a visit on the other hand, is a problem. However, the camera is a two edged sword. If the stalker harasses the stalkee in a public place, then one has a record that can be given to the police. If, on the other hand, the stalker is using the webcam to provide him with intelligence and is going to take action outside of camera view, that's a different matter. Again, I must point out that the stalker can currently follow his victim around. The webcam might make his job a little easier, but the lack thereof does not prevent him from stalking his victims.
None of the concerns I have seen raised have suggested thatbeing watched is in and of itself the problem. Every problem scenario requires the watcher to use the information he has gleaned to harm those he is watching. The webcams aren't a problem in and of themselves. They may make cetain illegal actions easier to do, but so does the telephone. So does freenet.
There is nothing wrong with sticking a camera in a public place. The question s, do you want the police to be the only ones watching them, or do you want everyone to have access to the same information.
Let's assume for a minute that you are walking through the park. Let's assume someone sees you walking and decides that you are acting suspiciously, perhaps even, as Chief Quimby would put it, "hopped up on goofballs!"
Now, what's the difference if this person making this unjustified inferrence is watching you in person or over the web? Either one can call the police and "rat" you out, and in either case the police response will be the same.
Let's take it a step further. Let's say I am a bigot who hates the idea of people with brown skin walking through that park. Hell, let's even say I have a gang of people who feel similarly, and that we are going to flood the police with reports of "a man acting suspiciously", every time we see someone in the park whose skin color we don't like. Of course, when one calls in a police report, they generally log the phone used to make the report, and ask for the person's name.
The police will rapidly recognize the pattern of false reports, and start investigating the source. Why? because they really hate being lied to. Filing a false report is a serious thing. Doing it chronically will generate a response.
Perhaps the person watching you on the web could capture the video and use it to publicly embarass you. But again, this risk exists whenever one is outside. If you walk into a telephone pole in public you have a chance of being filmed on videotape and publicly embarassed. It's kind of a hazard of going outside.
OK. Now imagine, I am a bigot who is going to harass people in public. Or better yet, I am a biggoted rogue cop. Well, in those public places, I'd sure be worried that some hippy ACLU supporter is just waiting for me to slip up so they can bust my balls. I'll take my harassing behavior where the light of day wont shine on it.
Everyplace where cameras are posted and people know that they are posted crime goes down. The question is, do you want some special guardian class like the police to be the only people allowed to watch them, or do you want to let everyone use them. I like the idea of everyone having access much better than acess being limited to special class of people. I like the camera's better than no cameras, because wouldbe muggers, pickpockets, harassers are deterred, because they no longer can make sure their crime will go unnoticed by looking around to see who's watching them.
This is not a bad thing. David Brin actually discusses this in depth in his book Transparent Society."
A person watching the camera is no different than a person standing on the street corner watching people go by. Well there si a difference: the person watching on the web is a witness wwho cannot be intimidated into silence, and nobody knows if they are being watched in that public space.
I don't fear the loss of privacy, because there is no privacy in public spaces. I do like the idea that any would be wrongdoer does not know whether he is being watched or not.
SCO's actions vis a vis Linux infringement are completely independent of any "flaws" in the US legal system. In fact, I don't think any of their actions to date could even be considered illegal.
SCO has made bizarre claims. They have failed to substantiate them in any meaningful way. I don't think anybody fears the outcome of a lawsuit against an end user since they actually have no legal basis to do so. The only liability is on the part of the hypothetical person who released code that he or she did not have the copyrights to under the GPL.
The only reason to be concerned is the legal costs of answering any frivolous lawsuit they may introduce. However, Red Hat has established a fund to defend such claims, and I expect if I were to be sued from SCO, all I would have to do is publicize it and the donations would roll in.
All that is required of us is patience. Only the gullible are buying into SCO's claims. If the gullible stick with high TOC products or give SCO money, it gives those of us who don't yet another competitive advantage.:-)
I urge everyone to relax and keep things in perspective. If you get an invoice lodge a fraud complaint with the USPS and your state A.G. office (or similar orginization if outside the U.S.). If you get sued, contact EFF, Red hat and the media. If none of this happens, please feel free to download the ISO's for one of the many fine distro's that are available.
Essentially, sending a fraudulant invoice through the US mails is a crime:
"Extortion (18 USC 873, 876 & 877) Postal Inspectors investigate extortion and blackmail when demands for ransoms or rewards are sent through the U.S. Mail. Inspectors also strictly enforce laws prohibiting mail that contains threats of kidnapping, physical injury, or injury to the property or reputations of others
Mail Fraud (18 USC 1341, 1342 & 1345; 39 USC 3005 & 3007) The Postal Inspection Service is committed to protecting postal customers from misuse of the mail. Inspectors place special emphasis on mail fraud scams related to advance fees, boiler rooms, health care, insurance, investments, deceptive mailings and other consumer frauds, especially when they target the elderly or other susceptible groups."
The guys who investigate it are U.S. Postal Inspectors, who have very draconian powers, and have very wide-ranging jurisdiction.
I don't wether or not the damages they can claim are capped if they haven't formally filed for a copyright. I do know that damages are trebled if they have formally filed. However, it is a moot point. They haven't actually made any charges about copyright violation yet.
They have made many allegations in the media, but the only lawsuit they have filed alleges theft of trade secrets. In fact, they seem supiciously adverse to actually litigating the alleged copyright violations in GNU/Linux.
They had a great chance in Germany when SUSE sued them, and they chose not to fight.
They don't seem exactly eager to rumble with Red Hat either.
There is absolutley no justification for DOS'ing SCO.
DOS attacks are the internet equivalent of standing outside someones home playing heavy metal at 140 dB.
I'm puzzled as to what the guys making the attack hoped to accomplish.
To punish them for lying about linux? Their reputations are already in the toilet. Only ignorant fools are buying into their claims anyway.
To protect Linux? If one thinks about it, SCO has not harmed Linux in any meaningful way! The free distro's are there, and will be there for a long time. All they've done is slowed down adoption by the more clueless managers, which is really no big deal. Their legal claims about the GPL being invalid are such arrant nonsense: they won't stand in court. No matter what happens there will always be a GPLed kernel we can use.
To let them know we think they suck? Well, considering the increasingly defensive and irrational stances that they are taking, I think they already know that. The rest of the world is not buying into their claims. Even if their claims of hundreds of "licenses" sold are not wildly exagerated, that would mean 1% adoption rate.
To prevent people from doing business with SCO? I think that's pretty unethical. If people want to do business with SCO, let them. It's their choice if they want to throw good money away on vapor-ware of bad product. Would you prevent a stranger from buying cigarettes with his own money?
I know alot of people think using force to shut people up who say things you don't like is OK. But those people should take a look at the impression this gives to the non-geek world. They just reinforced the impression that OSS proponents are whiny immature people.
I think the guys behind the attacks scored an own goal.
That's quite true. I was probably being overtheoretical.
I haven't researched exactly what's going on with SCO's stock because I do not care:-): It strikes me as a scheme to part fools from their money. It depends, like most cons, on the gullibility & greed of the victim.
Basically, SCO printed more stock, and gave it to Canopy which then sold it to speculators at an inflated price.
They gave the stock to canopy in return for equity in Vultus.
Thus, Canopy reduced their stake in SCO slightly (while making SCO slightly more valuable equitywise), which is pretty much a null action, while selling shares to speculators at a very inflated price.
The money is coming from people who buy SCO stock in hopes of getting rich if SCO gets bought out or wins its lawsuit, and people looking to short SCO stock.
Though thinking about this, I am reminded of a great bit of imagery in Bujold's "Shards of Honor"
"'Put all the bad eggs in one basket,' she muttered. 'And--drop the basket?'"
The attorney on the losing side was none other than Brent Hatch, who is representing SCO. Hatch probably knew enough to advise SCO that covering up the "infringement" was a bad move. Assuming SCO had a legal case that they were hoping to win that is...
Of course, Hatch got Kimabll's ruling overturned on appeal, so he may have learned nothing.
Nobody is forced to write open source code. The developers are either people who write something voluntarily on their own initiative, or are doing it for hire for some other person or company,
The people who do it on their own initiative obviously are getting some benefit, or they wouldn't expend the effort. The people doing it for hire are being reimbused for it by those who hired them.
The beauty of open source software is that its creators are not the only ones who benefit from their efforts. Rather, everyone of us who use their products are enriched. Neither the developers, the distributors or the end users are harmed by the software development. Everybody involved is better off.
If you view people using code released under an open source license as "exploiting the developers", you are welcome to use the traditional proprietary licensing schemes for your code. That's called freedom of choice.
The open source community is really not a victim of SCO. SCO's presentations have been so much noise. While it may slow the adoption of open source software in the short term, it will not fundamentally alter the long term shift, since that is being driven by market forces.
Those buying SCO stock are either intelligent investors looking the short it, investors taking a very high-risk/high-payoff gamble, or fools. The first two groups are behaving rationally deserve their profits and losses, the last group, well fools seem to find many ways to be parted from their money.
Those still purchasing SCO's software have all the information easily available to judge the value of SCO's software. Most who examine their offerings are conluding that they are demanding lots of money for crappy software. Those who conclude differently are either genuinely getting the value they want (our legacy code only runs on SCO), or are making an unwise choice. The former are not victims, and the latter, well we cannot save the fools of the world from their willful poor judgement.
As to those fearing SCO's dreaded lawsuits against end uses: SCO has not yet presented any information that demonstrates they have a case. Thus, the probability of them winning the litigation is low. Frankly, buying a license from them is probably a waste of money. Donate the money to the legal fund established by Red Rat to defend open source software: you'll get a better return on your investment.
I urge everyone to maintain their cool. SCO has only been making alot of noise. Until they place their evidence on the table we can safely ignore them. After they place their evidence on the table, we will have a knew linux kernel soon thereafter that does not infringe (assuming that there is any infringement).
A good fighter maintains an alert yet relaxed demeanor, and once his opponent moves, takes advantage of the vulnerability that the opponent peresents. Ignore SCO's shrieks and gibbering: it is meaningless noise.
If it is for a government project and has utility that is incidentally beneficial to others outside the government, it woud be OK.
But, if the government is producing software that is not intended for their own use, then they are competing with private businesses and forcing their competitors to subsidize the development via tax dollars.
An analogy may be made to writing books:
If the government were to employ writers to produce documents related to governance, for example a document aimed at the general public explaining the principles behind copyrights, and how the associated laws work, there would be little controversy.
But, then, if the government were to hire writers to write books on yoga and music theory, I for one, would see it as the misuse of my taxes. It would be better to let me keep the money and spend it on the books and authors that I wish to subsidize.
Even if the auto industry/petrochem industry did prevent the widespread adoption from being used in the US, there are other countries like Japan which have the capability to engineer complex systems, the discipline to deploy them, and who would welcome reducing their depndence on foreign oil.
When it was first written there was a movement to ban Huck Finn because it undermined segregation (I can't remember the official justification used, just the actual reason)
Then in the 1980's, there was a movement to ban it because it was demeaning to African Americans.
So, when it was first written people wanted to ban it for being insufficiently racist, and now they wish to ban it because it is too racist.
Slashdot Mirror
Navitaire appears to be a subsidiary of Accenture. Having experienced firsthand the inability of Accenture to develop quality applications in a timely manner and on a decent budget, I am not surprised that Easy Jet kicked them out.
To steal from Red Dwarf:
"If a job is worth doing well, hire someone competent. If it is not worth doing at all but you need to spend lots of money, hire Accenture."
I think he means the waste is not released into the environment.
Most conventional power plants dump the waste into the environment, and they have significant negative health effects to the general population.
Nuclear Waste, if handled properly, stays contained in one place, and hence is not out there for you to ingest.
If you break into someone's house, telling him after the fact how yo got in does not automatically pardon you from the crime...
Had Adrian simply notified the New York Times in a timely manner about the open proxy servers, he would have been fine and probably accomplished his mission.
Instead, he took his time cracking the system, widening the holes so to speak, and then went to a reporter(!), of all people.
There is nothing inherently wrong with his desire to improve security. There is nothing wrong with him looking around the public spaces on the internet for chinks. What was wrong was that he failed to tell the people maintaining the chinks directly about them, widened them until he got at valuable data, didn't tell the affected people about the data he had received, but then went to a third party and told them about the wanging big hole he had made. I'm sure he views himself as a knight in shining armor, but in this matter he behaved like a publicity-seeking self-promoter.
Yes, shame on the NYT for misconfiguring their systems, but even more shame on Adrian for doing something so illegal and counterproductive.
It does not matter if a person thinks he's a good guy, he still does not have carte blanche to do whatever he wishes.
You bring up some good points, however I feel they are minor drawbacks.
For example, in the case of the businessman concerned that his people want to unionize. If he really wants to see where his people go, h can now hire a prvate investigator. In fact, he's much more likely to hire the investigator than to sit around watching the webcam since he's got other things to do with his itme.
Similarly concerning stalking: A stalker sitting at home who never interacts with the stalkee does not matter, since the stalkee does not knwo that they even exist.
The stalker who uses the web to gather personal info and then decides to pay a visit on the other hand, is a problem. However, the camera is a two edged sword. If the stalker harasses the stalkee in a public place, then one has a record that can be given to the police. If, on the other hand, the stalker is using the webcam to provide him with intelligence and is going to take action outside of camera view, that's a different matter. Again, I must point out that the stalker can currently follow his victim around. The webcam might make his job a little easier, but the lack thereof does not prevent him from stalking his victims.
None of the concerns I have seen raised have suggested thatbeing watched is in and of itself the problem. Every problem scenario requires the watcher to use the information he has gleaned to harm those he is watching. The webcams aren't a problem in and of themselves. They may make cetain illegal actions easier to do, but so does the telephone. So does freenet.
There is nothing wrong with sticking a camera in a public place. The question s, do you want the police to be the only ones watching them, or do you want everyone to have access to the same information.
I must disagree.
Let's assume for a minute that you are walking through the park. Let's assume someone sees you walking and decides that you are acting suspiciously, perhaps even, as Chief Quimby would put it, "hopped up on goofballs!"
Now, what's the difference if this person making this unjustified inferrence is watching you in person or over the web? Either one can call the police and "rat" you out, and in either case the police response will be the same.
Let's take it a step further. Let's say I am a bigot who hates the idea of people with brown skin walking through that park. Hell, let's even say I have a gang of people who feel similarly, and that we are going to flood the police with reports of "a man acting suspiciously", every time we see someone in the park whose skin color we don't like. Of course, when one calls in a police report, they generally log the phone used to make the report, and ask for the person's name.
The police will rapidly recognize the pattern of false reports, and start investigating the source. Why? because they really hate being lied to. Filing a false report is a serious thing. Doing it chronically will generate a response.
Perhaps the person watching you on the web could capture the video and use it to publicly embarass you. But again, this risk exists whenever one is outside. If you walk into a telephone pole in public you have a chance of being filmed on videotape and publicly embarassed. It's kind of a hazard of going outside.
OK. Now imagine, I am a bigot who is going to harass people in public. Or better yet, I am a biggoted rogue cop. Well, in those public places, I'd sure be worried that some hippy ACLU supporter is just waiting for me to slip up so they can bust my balls. I'll take my harassing behavior where the light of day wont shine on it.
Everyplace where cameras are posted and people know that they are posted crime goes down. The question is, do you want some special guardian class like the police to be the only people allowed to watch them, or do you want to let everyone use them. I like the idea of everyone having access much better than acess being limited to special class of people. I like the camera's better than no cameras, because wouldbe muggers, pickpockets, harassers are deterred, because they no longer can make sure their crime will go unnoticed by looking around to see who's watching them.
This is not a bad thing. David Brin actually discusses this in depth in his book Transparent Society."
A person watching the camera is no different than a person standing on the street corner watching people go by. Well there si a difference: the person watching on the web is a witness wwho cannot be intimidated into silence, and nobody knows if they are being watched in that public space.
I don't fear the loss of privacy, because there is no privacy in public spaces. I do like the idea that any would be wrongdoer does not know whether he is being watched or not.
SCO's actions vis a vis Linux infringement are completely independent of any "flaws" in the US legal system. In fact, I don't think any of their actions to date could even be considered illegal.
:-)
SCO has made bizarre claims. They have failed to substantiate them in any meaningful way. I don't think anybody fears the outcome of a lawsuit against an end user since they actually have no legal basis to do so. The only liability is on the part of the hypothetical person who released code that he or she did not have the copyrights to under the GPL.
The only reason to be concerned is the legal costs of answering any frivolous lawsuit they may introduce. However, Red Hat has established a fund to defend such claims, and I expect if I were to be sued from SCO, all I would have to do is publicize it and the donations would roll in.
All that is required of us is patience. Only the gullible are buying into SCO's claims. If the gullible stick with high TOC products or give SCO money, it gives those of us who don't yet another competitive advantage.
I urge everyone to relax and keep things in perspective. If you get an invoice lodge a fraud complaint with the USPS and your state A.G. office (or similar orginization if outside the U.S.). If you get sued, contact EFF, Red hat and the media. If none of this happens, please feel free to download the ISO's for one of the many fine distro's that are available.
If you get one of these letters, I suggest you go to this link:
l Fr audComplaint.htm
https://www.usps.com/postalinspectors/fraud/Mai
Essentially, sending a fraudulant invoice through the US mails is a crime:
"Extortion (18 USC 873, 876 & 877)
Postal Inspectors investigate extortion and blackmail when demands for ransoms or rewards are sent through the U.S. Mail. Inspectors also strictly enforce laws prohibiting mail that contains threats of kidnapping, physical injury, or injury to the property or reputations of others
Mail Fraud (18 USC 1341, 1342 & 1345; 39 USC 3005 & 3007)
The Postal Inspection Service is committed to protecting postal customers from misuse of the mail. Inspectors place special emphasis on mail fraud scams related to advance fees, boiler rooms, health care, insurance, investments, deceptive mailings and other consumer frauds, especially when they target the elderly or other susceptible groups."
The guys who investigate it are U.S. Postal Inspectors, who have very draconian powers, and have very wide-ranging jurisdiction.
I don't wether or not the damages they can claim are capped if they haven't formally filed for a copyright. I do know that damages are trebled if they have formally filed. However, it is a moot point. They haven't actually made any charges about copyright violation yet.
They have made many allegations in the media, but the only lawsuit they have filed alleges theft of trade secrets. In fact, they seem supiciously adverse to actually litigating the alleged copyright violations in GNU/Linux.
They had a great chance in Germany when SUSE sued them, and they chose not to fight.
They don't seem exactly eager to rumble with Red Hat either.
SCO's attempts to destroy software development are pretty pathetic. I mean, would you give your wallet a palsied 100lb mugger wielding a ripe banana?
I think any DoS attack launched against them would be extreemly counterproductive and unethical.
Let them live or die according to the merits of their actions. The DoS attacks accomplish nothing good or useful, and are absolutely unjustified.
Assuming, of course, that they are happening at all.
There is absolutley no justification for DOS'ing SCO.
DOS attacks are the internet equivalent of standing outside someones home playing heavy metal at 140 dB.
I'm puzzled as to what the guys making the attack hoped to accomplish.
To punish them for lying about linux? Their reputations are already in the toilet. Only ignorant fools are buying into their claims anyway.
To protect Linux? If one thinks about it, SCO has not harmed Linux in any meaningful way! The free distro's are there, and will be there for a long time. All they've done is slowed down adoption by the more clueless managers, which is really no big deal. Their legal claims about the GPL being invalid are such arrant nonsense: they won't stand in court. No matter what happens there will always be a GPLed kernel we can use.
To let them know we think they suck? Well, considering the increasingly defensive and irrational stances that they are taking, I think they already know that. The rest of the world is not buying into their claims. Even if their claims of hundreds of "licenses" sold are not wildly exagerated, that would mean 1% adoption rate.
To prevent people from doing business with SCO? I think that's pretty unethical. If people want to do business with SCO, let them. It's their choice if they want to throw good money away on vapor-ware of bad product. Would you prevent a stranger from buying cigarettes with his own money?
I know alot of people think using force to shut people up who say things you don't like is OK. But those people should take a look at the impression this gives to the non-geek world. They just reinforced the impression that OSS proponents are whiny immature people.
I think the guys behind the attacks scored an own goal.
That's quite true. I was probably being overtheoretical.
:-): It strikes me as a scheme to part fools from their money. It depends, like most cons, on the gullibility & greed of the victim.
I haven't researched exactly what's going on with SCO's stock because I do not care
Basically, SCO printed more stock, and gave it to Canopy which then sold it to speculators at an inflated price.
They gave the stock to canopy in return for equity in Vultus.
Thus, Canopy reduced their stake in SCO slightly (while making SCO slightly more valuable equitywise), which is pretty much a null action, while selling shares to speculators at a very inflated price.
The money is coming from people who buy SCO stock in hopes of getting rich if SCO gets bought out or wins its lawsuit, and people looking to short SCO stock.
Though thinking about this, I am reminded of a great bit of imagery in Bujold's "Shards of Honor"
"'Put all the bad eggs in one basket,' she muttered. 'And--drop the basket?'"
The attorney on the losing side was none other than Brent Hatch, who is representing SCO. Hatch probably knew enough to advise SCO that covering up the "infringement" was a bad move. Assuming SCO had a legal case that they were hoping to win that is...
Of course, Hatch got Kimabll's ruling overturned on appeal, so he may have learned nothing.
Nobody is forced to write open source code. The developers are either people who write something voluntarily on their own initiative, or are doing it for hire for some other person or company,
The people who do it on their own initiative obviously are getting some benefit, or they wouldn't expend the effort. The people doing it for hire are being reimbused for it by those who hired them.
The beauty of open source software is that its creators are not the only ones who benefit from their efforts. Rather, everyone of us who use their products are enriched. Neither the developers, the distributors or the end users are harmed by the software development. Everybody involved is better off.
If you view people using code released under an open source license as "exploiting the developers", you are welcome to use the traditional proprietary licensing schemes for your code. That's called freedom of choice.
The open source community is really not a victim of SCO. SCO's presentations have been so much noise. While it may slow the adoption of open source software in the short term, it will not fundamentally alter the long term shift, since that is being driven by market forces.
Those buying SCO stock are either intelligent investors looking the short it, investors taking a very high-risk/high-payoff gamble, or fools. The first two groups are behaving rationally deserve their profits and losses, the last group, well fools seem to find many ways to be parted from their money.
Those still purchasing SCO's software have all the information easily available to judge the value of SCO's software. Most who examine their offerings are conluding that they are demanding lots of money for crappy software. Those who conclude differently are either genuinely getting the value they want (our legacy code only runs on SCO), or are making an unwise choice. The former are not victims, and the latter, well we cannot save the fools of the world from their willful poor judgement.
As to those fearing SCO's dreaded lawsuits against end uses: SCO has not yet presented any information that demonstrates they have a case. Thus, the probability of them winning the litigation is low. Frankly, buying a license from them is probably a waste of money. Donate the money to the legal fund established by Red Rat to defend open source software: you'll get a better return on your investment.
I urge everyone to maintain their cool. SCO has only been making alot of noise. Until they place their evidence on the table we can safely ignore them. After they place their evidence on the table, we will have a knew linux kernel soon thereafter that does not infringe (assuming that there is any infringement).
A good fighter maintains an alert yet relaxed demeanor, and once his opponent moves, takes advantage of the vulnerability that the opponent peresents. Ignore SCO's shrieks and gibbering: it is meaningless noise.
It really depends on what the government's goal:
If it is for a government project and has utility that is incidentally beneficial to others outside the government, it woud be OK.
But, if the government is producing software that is not intended for their own use, then they are competing with private businesses and forcing their competitors to subsidize the development via tax dollars.
An analogy may be made to writing books:
If the government were to employ writers to produce documents related to governance, for example a document aimed at the general public explaining the principles behind copyrights, and how the associated laws work, there would be little controversy.
But, then, if the government were to hire writers to write books on yoga and music theory, I for one, would see it as the misuse of my taxes. It would be better to let me keep the money and spend it on the books and authors that I wish to subsidize.
Even if the auto industry/petrochem industry did prevent the widespread adoption from being used in the US, there are other countries like Japan which have the capability to engineer complex systems, the discipline to deploy them, and who would welcome reducing their depndence on foreign oil.
When it was first written there was a movement to ban Huck Finn because it undermined segregation (I can't remember the official justification used, just the actual reason)
Then in the 1980's, there was a movement to ban it because it was demeaning to African Americans.
So, when it was first written people wanted to ban it for being insufficiently racist, and now they wish to ban it because it is too racist.
Both groups wanted to protect the children (tm).
Talk about irony.