Slashdot Log In
Congress Endorses Open Source For Military
Journal written by Presto Vivace (882157) and posted by
kdawson
on Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:33 AM
from the because-it's-better-that's-why dept.
from the because-it's-better-that's-why dept.
A draft defense authorizing act in Congress includes wording plugging open source software. It seems both cost and software security were considerations. This is an important victory for open source. "It's rare to see a concept as technical as open-source software in a federal funding bill. But the House's proposed National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (H.R. 5658) includes language that calls for military services to consider open-source software when procuring manned or unmanned aerial vehicles."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Nice to see (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nice to see (Score:5, Insightful)
My guess is what you have here is a good indication that some company had enough money to fund a lobbyist to push for this to help them in the future since they use FOSS in their product. Not new insight or greater education on the part of law makers.
Parent
I wondered about that (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, they are probably realising that $700 needs to come from somewhere so they might as well use open source software instead of buying licenses.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nice to see (Score:4, Informative)
Except that the kind of software in the bill in question is rarely licensed - it's tactical software, not admin software. Specialized tactical software is usually purchased outright. (Not to mention that the Federal Government undoubtedly gets significant discounts from vendors for per seat licenses and support.)
That being said, there's much less here than meets the eye. Like many other extremely specialized problem domains, there almost certainly isn't any FOSS to be considered for use. This goes double since this almost certainly is an embedded system, not a PC, with the operating hardware, computer hardware, OS, and applications tightly bound and integrated. (In the systems like this I worked on while I was in the Navy, the line between OS and application was a wide grey area - in some ways they were virtually the same.)
Parent
new clause? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
>>I wonder if this will cause new clauses in gpl terms similar to commercial usage clauses preventing the support of any millitary, etc?
I doubt it.
The FSF will be more interested in the other side having the same access.
Freedom for all, even your enemies.
Re:new clause? (Score:4, Informative)
Considering that would violate the OSI guidelines (and contradict the GPL FAQ), probably not.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There are no commercial usage clauses in any version of the GPL. The OSI and FSF agree that free or open source licenses, respectively, should never have any sort of usage clause in them. Richard Stallman has publicly encouraged everybody to find ways to profit off free software.
There are terms in some free and open source licenses that make certain business models impractical, but nothing that would restrict any area of use.
Enjoy it while it lasts. (Score:3, Insightful)
You can be sure that Microsoft and other proprietary companies will be fighting tooth and nail to remove this provision.
Re:Enjoy it while it lasts. (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
> Open source software has been used to develop military
> systems for many years now on the contractor side.
Right on. Just as an example, we set up CougaarForge [cougaar.org] for a DARPA project back in 2003. 'Twas good times.
GPL'd software (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:GPL'd software (Score:5, Informative)
From my understanding of the GPL, this would only be true if the government is distributing the modified binaries to the terrorists. If the changes are internal-use only, there isn't a GPL conflict by not distributing the modified source.
Parent
Re:GPL'd software (Score:5, Funny)
If the Government uses open source code that is under the GPL license, and modifies it to include some security or other feature that is considered to be under the umbrella of "National Security", are they required to provide the source code to terrorists so they can attempt to crack it?
Depends. If my company uses OSS in an internal application, I don't have to release the changes back to the public. But, if my company were to distribute a product that uses it we'd have to provide source code.
I'm assuming that the military would not have to release source code in UAV's because they tend to get those products back and therefore it would be an internal product or application. They'd have to release the source for any bombs or missiles though because they are delivering that product to the public.
Parent
Re:GPL'd software (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:GPL'd software (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:GPL'd software (Score:4, Funny)
You must work at Microsoft. Destroying someone is not considered to be analogous to "delivering a product" to someone anywhere else on the planet as far as I am aware ;-)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No, you're mistaken. The source for bombs or missles is part of the delivery system, much like the source code in a UPS driver's tablet computer, it is not intended to be consumed by the public. The appl
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, in fact if the change a version of Linux and claim they can't release it for national security, then they wouldn't release that.
Not really a problem.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Only if they redistribute their modified version.
And no, distributing it internally within the military does not count as distribution.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So the GPL is a perfectly viable option, then ...
They'll probably come up with a way to mess it up (Score:4, Insightful)
Like setup a Linux environment, and realize they have some old, critical, archaic, crappy piece of software that only runs on Windows NT.
So they'll get some virutualization software inorder to run Windows on their new Linux servers in order to get that old app running.
So they'll virtualize a bunch of old NT boxes, only to find out app doesn't work well when running on virtualized Windows.
So then they have to install new Server 2008 boxes to run the old app, only to find out the old version of that app won't run on Windows versions newer than NT 3.5.
So now they pay millions for a new version of said critical app.
Then they realized the new version of the app has a Linux version.
Then some figures out that the old app could have run under WINE.
In other news (Score:5, Funny)
Windows Media player Deluxe.
technical? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's rare to see a concept as technical as open-source software in a federal funding bill.
Open Source is a legal and business concept. You'd hope that a few hundred lawyers would be able to figure that one out.
Clarifications on Military Open Source (Score:5, Informative)
I already see some misunderstanding in other threads in this conversation. (a) people say the military won't give back the changes they make to GPL software. (b) people say that because it is GPL, the "bad guys" will get it.
For the first point, the GPL does not require changes to be merged back into the main development area. It allows (and encourages) projects to FORK the source code into new projects when different applications are desired. This keeps the original projects clean from "feature creep" and gives the different (competing) development teams control of their own development. The limitation that the GPL imposes is that if an organization wants to DISTRIBUTE the executable versions of their software, they would need to include an offer to distribute the source as well. Since it is not in the US military's interest to distribute their software, there is no real concern of (b) the "bad guys" getting the software.
In that vain, the "bad guys" would have access to the baseline version if they can figure out what software has been forked into military applications. If the US military is foolish enough to operate this using defaults that are hackable, then it serves them right. I personally think that they are more qualified than that.
A last concern is (c) THIS IS BEING FUNDED BY TAXPAYER MONEY AND IT SHOULD BE OWNED BY THE TAXPAYERS. This is false. I mean, the funding does come from taxes, but the public has no more of a claim for software that is developed for military applications using FOSS software than they do over the software, hardware, and designs of any other piece of military equipment ever designed. These instruments are created for the purpose of providing national security. If the designs were made public, then security WOULD be compromised. Ergo, in the interests of national security it's important for that information to be kept private.
Final point, the GPR (Government Purpose Rights) license. This is a thinly veiled government source license that I have seen the military force on subcontractors in recent years to force Boeing, Lockheed, and all the rest to "play nice". The GPR license is a requirement on contracts so that the government gains the right to send software developed by Lockheed over to Boeing for further analysis. Believe it or not, frequently in legacy codebases you see "Proprietary of XYZ Corporation" and for the most part the government tries to acknowledge these rights. However, they realize that many things are developed over and over again by different companies because they are prevented from leveraging off of each others work (at the cost of the taxpayers). It is encouraging, therefore, to see the government prevent this with GPR.
Re:Clarifications on Military Open Source (Score:4, Insightful)
If you really wanna bitch DARPA will take their internet and go home...
Parent
.gov and .mil were FIRST users of Open Source (Score:3, Insightful)
Most all the software I develop goes to the US government, mostly the DoD. I've been using Open Source for well over 20 years now. I don't think it was called "open source" back then but still much of it was.
You have to remember that government contractors and universities had access to the Internet starting back in the late 1970's and were on USNET long before there was a web.
I'm certain that the government and military were the second users of open source universities being the first users. Only after the web got popular did open source spread out into the rest of the world.
Re:Old News (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And, who modded this guy informative?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Also, most military women trim their bush or shave it outright.
Ah, you're confusing Open Source with Open Sores.
Re:Old News (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Old News (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, and it will probably give them leverage when negotiating with those vendors.
Parent
Re:Old News (Score:5, Interesting)
From a non-USA point of view, I think this is a great step for open source solutions, but more for software in general.
It's been know that whatever the US military puts their hands on, that can grow to a great size. The whole Arpanet->Internet analogy may or may not be flawed for this. A lot of innovation comes from military funded projects.
The open source model is a great source (no pun intended) of innovation and combining those two points could lead to a massive step forward.
/PersonalOpinion
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
And, in fairness, in actual printed newspapers I frequently cringe at the atrocious spelling and grammar I see.
Doesn't mean I'm in favor of it.
And, I don't know about the rest of you, but Firefox is spell-checking as I fill in forms, so it's not like it's tough to get some help.
Cheers
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, stop it... they're using the VxWorks spellchecker. It's very real time, and very fast.
sic (Score:3, Informative)
Re:oh boy (Score:4, Funny)
now it is great to know that the gov't will want me to release the software i write.
First, that's not what TFA (or even the summary) says. Second, there are a lot of companies writing, documenting, and using open source software. Open source <> "no profit".
our small business is gonna make it, i promise!
I wouldn't exactly call your business "small", Mr Ballmer! ;)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hmm, the BSA vs. the military(yes, they use a LOT of Windows boxes and cannot possibly keep track of all those licenses) would be an amusing cage match.
Re:oh boy (Score:4, Funny)
Two organization enter..one with heavy firepower.
Yes, I would enjoy watching that.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, 'cause that's what this is about -- the government FORCING open source. Try to at least read TFS. And maybe you just need to cut a few more corners before you don't have to worry about your job going to India!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Linux is not the choice of a new generation.
Posting anonymously...
I know of at least one embedded real time platform that fly's using none of the cruft from GHS or VxWorks. This platform leverages GCC for compilation and GDB for debugging.
I know of another embedded real time platform that is used in military communications that DOES use GHS cruft.
The most compelling evidence that I know of not to rely on GHS... there were software bugs in it that were discovered, isolated, and patched under the support agreements. There have been no such bugs
Re:Mostly inteligence - not code (Score:4, Insightful)
Just one counter example: selinux came from the NSA. A pretty big "give back".
http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/ [nsa.gov]
There is a LOT of government written code available. In fact many of the biggest and most complex free software systems were developed and given away by the US government. It's just that they typically do not write word processors and games so your typical home user does not see it.
I can think of many examples most from the areas of science and enginerring. Here is one
http://www.nec2.org/nec_hist.txt [nec2.org]
Parent