US Military Settles Software Piracy Claims For $50M 127
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.
Open Source Troll much? (Score:5, 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
Oh man (Score:1, Insightful)
This submitter has the typical Slashdot FOSS douchebag attitude. This case has NOTHING TO DO with open source software, yet you can always find a way to jam it in there eh?
Re:Open Source Troll much? (Score:1, Insightful)
No, because opensource lets you quickstart easily and cheaply.
ha? (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?
Re:Oh man (Score:5, Insightful)
I think timothy added the FOSS douchebag statement, not the submitter.
Cutbacks so no site licenses? (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.
Re:Open Source Troll much? (Score:5, 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 [about.com]
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 [brisbanetimes.com.au]
Re:Oh man (Score:3, Insightful)
Every government software expenditure on software licences has something to do with the alternate, the development of a free open source software solution. Where the purchase of software licences exceeds the cost of direct development of the software solution, which can then be made available to the public for free those people who paid for the development, then that is money blatantly thrown away and brings to immediate mind, what was the corruption in the process that allowed that poor decision. The only douchebag thing going on is why tax payer dollars are continually being used to favour a few with bloated profits from licensed software solutions whilst the majority miss out on any benefit from free open source solutions.
Government software solutions should always favour open source for two reasons. One it means direct payment to local developers for initialising and customising those solutions, whether as direct salary payments, contracts and or prizes for specific solutions and, two of course those solutions now become available to the tax paying public for free as they have already have paid for them.
So yeah, every time the government spends money on software licences it is money lost to the public for no benefit to the public and this has 'EVERYTHING TO DO' with the future investment of taxpayer dollars in software and should be mentioned 'EACH AND EVERY TIME' a story comes up about the government spending money on software licences rather than investing in free open source software, local developers and future public accessibility to that software.
Consistency would be great (Score:5, Insightful)
US government downloads software on more devices it's licensed to -> get's a 90% discount in the fine and not even a warning
Re:Simply not true (Score:4, 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.