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.
Government Development (Score:5, Funny)
$50 million could have paid for a whole lot of private sector open source software development.
If the military had spent the money on development, they might have finished the request for proposals before running out of funding...
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah but open source projects don't give principals free vacations, cars and other bennies.
Re: (Score:1)
they also require the source code be distributed, so the program is essentially gifted to the US army's enemies...
Re:Government Development (Score:4, Informative)
they also require the source code be distributed, so the program is essentially gifted to the US army's enemies...
I don't know of a single OSS license that requires distribution of source to anybody except recipients of binary versions (who, one hopes, the Pentagon would check for friendliness before sending software to, not that we have a terribly good track record on that...) It's commonly more widely distributed than that, for convenience or philanthropic reasons; but it would be perfectly doable to keep even an aggressively GPLed project in-house/among close collaborators only, with the only caveat being that you'd need to be using only LGPL or less encumbered external components.
Re: (Score:3)
If the software is developed for the US Government (USG), then the terms of the GPL don't really even apply: the GPL requires you to distribute (or make available) the source code to everyone you distribute binaries to. Well, if you're only distributing binaries to yourself, then there's nothing to do. So if the USG doesn't distribute the binaries to anyone else outside the government, then they don't have to distribute source code anywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking of use cases like the various 'America+NATO Buddies!' shared or partially shared, or one nation with purchases by allies, etc. weapon system procurement arrangements that we've done over the years. In a situation like that, you aren't just dumping it on github; but there are multiple organizationally distinct groups using and modifying the product, each of which proba
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't want to distribute the source, what's the point of using an open source license?
Re: (Score:2)
But if the software is changing hands b/w say the USAF and the US Navy, or b/w Centcom and Pacific fleet, then is that considered 'distributing only to yourself' or is it considered distribution? All of the above come under the Pentagon, but are different organizations, or aren't they? This is where the license becomes more fuzzy.
But the OP's point still stands - the US government could have worked on BSD licensed software (even if they wanted to steer clear of Theo's OBSD) and made that the basis of t
Re: (Score:2)
But if the software is changing hands b/w say the USAF and the US Navy, or b/w Centcom and Pacific fleet, then is that considered 'distributing only to yourself' or is it considered distribution? All of the above come under the Pentagon, but are different organizations, or aren't they? This is where the license becomes more fuzzy.
I would call the US Government a singular entity.
You think it's "distribution" if the IT Department of Corporation X gives software to the HR department of that same corporation?
Re:Government Development (Score:4, Informative)
Software (and any other copyrightable work) developed directly by an employee of the US Government is, unless it qualifies to be secret, required to be released into the Public Domain, which means that you can't even attach the limited restrictions of a permissive/promiscuous license like BSD to it.
Re: Government Development (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but open source projects don't give principals free vacations, cars and other bennies.
depends largely on the open source project. quite a few have done exactly that...
Re: (Score:2)
Really? I wasn't aware payoffs and bribes were used in the open source development model.
Re: (Score:2)
$50 million could have paid for a whole lot of private sector open source software development.
Unlikely that it would have bought an equally useful product.
$50 million isn't that many employees really, well less than 500. Those 500 people are not going to create software of the same level of quality (assuming the commercial software isn't complete shit) with the same level of experience thrown in as the company who's been doing it for years.
There is FAR more to writing software than just lines of code, but unfortunately only a few projects in the OSS world actually understand that, and pretty much a
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
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
No, because opensource lets you quickstart easily and cheaply.
Re: (Score:3)
But without a clear singular direction you end up with a jack of all trades but a master of none.
Re: (Score:2)
That's no different than most commercial software: unless the commercial software is developed for one customer (i.e., it's custom-made software), that software maker needs to try to please as many potential customers as possible, so you end up with "featuritis".
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: (Score:2)
Also there is a tendency to shift requirements part way through the project.
A third problem is clueless people putting together the requirements and bids, missing a lot of stuff out, and then for the project to succeed there are a lot of costs that were not ex
Re: (Score:2)
This is what happens when you spend money that you didn't have to earn.
Re: (Score:1)
The alternative is wasting billions of $ on privately created programs that don't do what they should--the exact amount might be lower, but it'd still be in the billions. The real question is, has any government or other organization made OSS payroll systems that are readily modifiable to complex rules? If there was just one decent one, how much would it cost to modify it to work on even some of the more esoteric rule sets? Because once you get to that point, every one of those "billions of $ wasted on p
Re: (Score:2)
Ouch, that payroll system sounds as disastrous as New Zealand's education payroll system Novopay. (Talent2. Even more incompetent than IBM!)
Or INCIS, the New Zealand police computer system (thanks IBM!)
Wait... why does everyone hire IBM again?
Re: (Score:2)
If a number of different governments, or different government agencies get together (or even with other non government organisations) and develop software jointly, the individual cost will be much less...
Governments and governmental institutions are notoriously bad at software development. This [wikipedia.org] has already cost every man, woman and child in the UK £200 each, with awful returns. No one wanted it in the first place, but that's beside the point.
It's not an open source/closed source problem... it's a
Ah Ha! (Score:2)
According to court documents filed in 2012, the deal with the military meant up to 500 named users could access the software.
Apptricity later estimated that 9,000 users were accessing the program, in addition to the 500 that had been paid for.
The unauthorised copying only came to light after a US Army official mentioned "thousands" of devices running the software during a presentation on technology.
Well there's your problem right there!
One might have assumed a BSA sting except, well, it's the gub'ment.
Re: (Score:1)
I doubt the Army official knew they were pirated. Pirating is usually caused by carelessness at the lower levels of an organization, not a general org plan to pirate. Although, it could be argued that higher levels didn't bother to take inventory or were sloppy at record keeping.
Re: (Score:3)
I doubt the Army official knew they were pirated.
I don't believe this.
The Army has a professional IT program. Everyone from the commanders down to the bottom have to do CBT's and attend briefings on this subject.
The grunts using the apps might have no clue what / when / where the software was loaded, but the officers from the butter-bars on up certainly did.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
So the Army should have used Open Source, folks say? Which project does the same or close to this commercial product?
Re: (Score:1)
If it doesn't exist, then they could have developed it; probably would have cost much less than this did.
Re: (Score:2)
If it doesn't exist, then they could have developed it; probably would have cost much less than this did.
Clearly you are not familiar with both internal and external government software development.
Re: (Score:1)
Frankly, the government (and schools) has no business using proprietary garbage to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. Argue your point or shut the fuck up. Heh.
Re: (Score:2)
Their is no money in open source for DOD US government jobs!
Illiterate moron.
Re: (Score:2)
If it doesn't exist, then they could have developed it; probably would have cost much less than this did.
With the ridiculous budget blowouts on government technology projects i highly doubt that.
Re: (Score:1)
Says the guy who knows absolutely not a god damn thing about software development.
Oh, you're that raving lunatic who, instead of having that "silly political agenda" that RMS supposedly has, has a seething hatred for said agenda and spams every thread about it. Ignored.
Re:Oh man (Score:5, Insightful)
I think timothy added the FOSS douchebag statement, not the submitter.
Re: (Score:2)
Buying 10,000 useless items because they are on sale does not make it a good deal. You have less money and 10,000 useless items.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
I am sure that timothy (not the submitter, btw) had done due diligence research and verified that Apptricity offerings are also available or nearly-available in a viable FOSS project. Because otherwise it would be irresponsible to make such statements:
$50 million in tax money could have paid for a whole lot of open source software development, instead.
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
When your taxes pay for things such as (unclassified) equipment manuals and training guides, they are free to reproduce both in the DoD world and by the public.
If your taxes paid for development of FOSS software solutions, DoD, the rest of the government you also pay for, and the public wouldn't be paying even more for vendor lock.
Paying for the development and maintenance of software is fine, but vendor lock is less fine.
Simply not true (Score:5, Informative)
$50 million in tax money could have paid for a whole lot of open source software development, instead.
Bullshit. A government designed website cost over $600 million, for $50 million you only get the committee that argues about the design, and only for a year or so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Simply not true [Obamacare web costs] (Score:1)
There appears to be no clear boundary between "the website" and "related IT services" such that it's hard to draw an undisputed line. Estimates range from roughly $130 to $350 million, depending on the partitioning used. Left-leaning spinners seem to use the $130 figure and right-leaning spinners use the 350. Because the boundary is fuzzy, neither side is objectively wrong. Funny how that works.
More info:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/10/24/how-much-did-healthcare-gov-cost [washingtonpost.com]
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.
Re: (Score:2)
No it didn't. $600 million was budgeted under the heading of that particular project and supporting IT infrastructure, but that's government accounting. I doubt anyone here knows how much of that actually went on development and how much went straight to pork.
Hint: give me $2m + $3m for infrastructure and I'll get a system up and running that I guarantee would be better than what you got.
Re: (Score:2)
I think if we gave just about anyone over 18 with a slight knowledge of computers $2m + $3m they could go to school, learn what is needed and get a system up and running better then what we got.
That is one of the problems with the expense here. With what was spent, you could have picked high-school kids with little programing background, sent them to college and did better in about the same time span.
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: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Anything government does is away from some private sector people
No, not everything. There is no private army. There is no private national highway system. There is plenty of things that the government can do that cannot be done by the private industry. But why compete with the private industry while taxing it? That's just so damn obnoxious.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
GM did go bankrupt. Unless you think they should do it again but bankruptcy was part of the bailout.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Take money away from honest citizens at gun point
Your view of taxation?
Unless you believe that taxes are paid voluntarily the same way that charitable donations are made, it's your view of the taxes, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Compared to the US Army committing theft--BSA terms--of at least $50 million on the private sector, only to later begrudgingly pay some sort of settlement on the part they accidentally outed themselves on? At least direct open source software development could be some sort of honorable route. Btw, why aren't we also hearing about dishonorable discharges and criminal trials leading to prison terms? Because I'm pretty sure anyone e
Re: (Score:2)
Pay private industry to develop the open source software, just as anyone else in the market is free to do.
There is no obligation to vendor lock.
Re: (Score:2)
Even the incumbent makers of hammers would be happier living in a world where it isn't illegal to make a better hammer. They might moan and cry about it, and pretend like their case is special, but everyone is worse off when policy becomes "hinder technological progress to protect the economy of old technology".
Presumably the poster is trying to say that making the software open source is promoting the technology available to everyone, and since it is progress in technology, there is no need to protect the
Re: (Score:2)
$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?
How is it remotely ethical for government to spend our money on anything other than open-source software? Remember, all that really means (since 1991 or earlier) is that you can get your hands on the source code, especially if you've got the binary. In cases where the software is not secret, the code should be released to The People, who paid for it. In cases where it is, it should be held in escrow so that it can be studied in the future.
Goverment (Score:2)
The RIAA (Score:2)
buy vs. build (Score:3)
$50 million in tax money could have paid for a whole lot of open source software development, instead.
Maybe, but then again maybe they needed something that works today, so funding development of something that will work in two years simply wasn't an option? Not everything in this world is a conspiracy, you know?
Re: (Score:1)
There's open source alternatives for just about anything you can think of.
That is utter bullshit.
There is open source alternatives to very little of what you can think of in the business segement. There are open source alternatives for the most common software (OS, database, content management, word processing), but once you move out of the mainstream there is close to nothing. And when there is, it is seriously lacking in functionality. Just check out the portfolio of Quest software. Open source alternatives? Nothing. Check out identity management. Open source? Nothing even clo
Re: (Score:3)
There's open source alternatives for just about anything you can think of.
Wrong.
There are an incredible number of incredibly cool Free Software projects. That doesn't mean they cover everything, because that is just a lie.
I founded a small company two years ago. There is no Free Software on the market that could handle my finance and business administration. I looked really hard.
One of the products of my company is a piece of software that also doesn't exist as Free Software, nor does anything even close to it.
And let's not even get started about the whole games area where despit
Re: (Score:2)
You're assuming that what they got works today.
I'm not assuming any more than you do. ;-)
Some things in the world deserve to be treated more like a conspiracy, you know?
Never explain by malice what you can explain by ignorance, stupidity and greed.
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.
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
Does the OP really not understand? (Score:2)
Open Source for Military? (Score:2)
$50 million in tax money could have paid for a whole lot of open source software development
I'm a staunch advocate of open source software, but for military applications? Would it be wise to share your military's tools with every other country on the planet? Would that not be assisting your enemies?
Re: (Score:2)
Named user licensing (Score:3)
Apptricity later estimated that 9,000 users were accessing the program, in addition to the 500 that had been paid for.
This is equivalent to Microsoft claiming you pirated windows server, because you only bought 500 CALs, but your organization has 9000 employees.
Through some bit of magic, they say you get this license thingie, that you have to permanently assign to a specific piece of flesh and blood ---- no matter how many computers you have running the software; or how many employees you have on the job at a particular moment -- you don't count those: you count the total number of people your organization hired.
50 million divided by 8500 is close to $6000 per employee.
I would call that predatory + difficult to comply with licensing, not "piracy" --- the folks making out like bandits here is the software company.
I'm sure a fraction of the 50 million could have funded a contractor to build the product, and provide the military the rights to the software --- and unlimited, perpetual licenses.