Government-Funded GPL Software

tgw writes "Tom Adelstein has an article in 'Linux Journal' on how a major milestone in US government-funded OSS recently passed - virtually unnoticed." Slashdot has mentioned this company earlier.

Drm

[panxerox]

Yes but how long before various forces demand DRM of varying forms be put in GNU software? Once the government gets involved then the people that control the government do as well.

Re:Drm

[cbr2702]

That is part of the benifit of it being GPL'd. While the government is "involved" in the production of the software, once it has been released, the only way they have more control over it than anyone else is that they own the copyright. And DRM under GPL liscensing is impractical enought to be funny.

Re:Drm

[Anonymous Coward]

Then it isn't being in the spirit of the GPL anymore, and what would be the point of releasing under the GPL in the first place? where is the benfit to the government of going to all this trouble if they could just place arbitary restrictions in the first place without the GPL hassle?

RTFA!

[dotslashconfig]

The article talks about the government releasing software under the GPL, and not about government intervention in GNU/GPL projects.

In many cases, assuming the software is not proprietary, the work is available to the whole government for unlimited use and it falls under the public domain. Public domain materials can be requested by anyone...

Please READ before you post. It's very frustrating to see posts exactly opposite the subject of the article. /rant

Re:Drm

[belmolis]

How is this going to work? Its hard to think of situations in which the federal government would have a need for DRM. What argument are they going to use for putting DRM into GNU software? And how are they going to implement it? At worst, they could say they won't use FLOSS software for particular purposes without DRM. They can't actually control FLOSS software without major changes in copyright law that would be hard to target at FLOSS.

It seems to me that government release of software under the GPL is a big win for the FLOSS movement, and not just because its an additional adopter of the model. This provides a unifiying force between left wing and libertarian advocates of FLOSS and those conservatives who are not in the pockets of big corporations. That kind of conservative often views the federal government as a big ripoff. Releasing government software under the GPL gives back to the people.

Re:Drm

[westlake]

Its hard to think of situations in which the federal government would have a need for DRM.

Internal document management, including media content. Photographs, videos, etc. You think the Army is happy knowing Abu Ghraib torture pics circulated as screensavers?

Re:Drm

[belmolis]

Actually, the Abu Ghraib photos were taken by soldiers acting in their private capacity and distributed privately. They weren't liberated from government computers.

Still, its true that the government has some photos, documents, etc., that they wouldn't want circulated. However, I'm not sure that DRM is what they need to keep those documents safe. What DRM allows you to do is to publish files and control exactly who sees them, who can reproduce them, etc. Confidential government files aren't supposed to be published at all. Presumably the proper way to secure them is to encrypt them and keep them on systems isolated from the network, to which only certain people have access, with logging of file accesses and so on. In other words, you want a secure OS.

In the even the government did need DRM for purposes like this, presumably it could be added as a module that was not released. I don't see that there would be any need to demand that GNU software incorporate DRM.

Re:Drm

[westlake]

Actually, the Abu Ghraib photos were taken by soldiers acting in their private capacity and distributed privately

I don't think you can safely say that, given the evidence emerging now:

Lt. Gen. Sanchez..borrowed heavily from a list of high-pressure interrogation tactics used at the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and approved letting senior officials at a Baghdad jail use military dogs, temperature extremes, reversed sleep patterns, sensory deprivation, and diets of bread and water on detai [washingtonpost.com]

Re:Drm

[Bombcar]

GNU DRM [gnupg.org] software is already available.

It just makes sense for the government to do this.

[schild]

...with some software. I mean, look at it this way, a LOT of R&D and coding time can go into a piece of software and who better to fix the bugs and modify (in a positive manner) than the public. In addition to the fact that it won't cost the government shit to let the public find all the holes and patch them up so they don't have to [spend money doing so themselves].

So I guess the cliche applies here:
1. Government Funded GPL project
2. Unleash on public
3. ???
4. Profit!

Whether this is good or not, someone, within 30 comments of this post will post a jab at Bush.

Re:It just makes sense for the government to do th

[thewiz]

I wonder if the government would be willing to give a tax credit to programmers who submit bug-fixes or enhancements to their OSS software?

Re:It just makes sense for the government to do th

[deanj]

There's an old Dilbert cartoon in which the boss says the workers are going to get money for each bug they fix.... Wally says "I'm gonna go code myself a car!"

There's no way anyone will get tax credits for fixing bugs.

wow government funding!

[Anonymous Coward]

Linus Torvalds will be the richest man in the world!

Software paid via public funding should not be GPL

[ClarkEvans]

It should be public domain, without any restrictions on its use.

Re:Software paid via public funding should not be

[fcecin]

Why?

Re:Software paid via public funding should not be

[Anonymous Coward]

GPL favors some forms of businesses over other forms, and thus causes marketplace bias; public domain (no copyright at all) is the traditional, and best option for government.

Re:Software paid via public funding should not be

[fcecin]

But can't this be said about public domain as well? In that case businesses take GPL code that all people paid for, modify it, profit from selling the binaries of the derivative and (possibly) not disclosing their new source? If businesses don't cooperate, people and the government then lose money. GPL then would be better for government and the people. I'll stick to the FSF on this: GPL gives better protection, unless there is a specific reason to opt for LGPL or public domain.

Re:Software paid via public funding should not be

[Anonymous Coward]

In that case businesses take GPL code that all people paid for, modify it, profit from selling the binaries of the derivative and (possibly) not disclosing their new source? If businesses don't cooperate, people and the government then lose money

No. The decision to GPL or not GPL a piece of publicly-funded code should not be based on an expectation of future earnings from that code.

If it is, then the code should be developed (and funded) by the private sector, not the public sector.

Re:Software paid via public funding should not be

[Alan Hicks]

Yet another blind GPL fan boy.

businesses take [...] code that all people paid for, modify it, profit from selling the binaries of the derivative and (possibly) not disclosing their new source?

And this is a bad thing why? What is so inherently evil about businesses that they shouldn't be allowed to use a business model that uses some code developed by the government and then freely released to all? If they wish, they can take that public domain code, make changes, and release it GPL if they wish. You have the same option. Of course, the public domain code would always be public domain, and thus entirely free; nothing can change that.

The one and only purpose of the GPL is to ensure that derivative works (plugins, models and the like) get an open source license (in this case the GPL). Is netcat any less free because it's public domain? Is OpenBSD any less free because it's licensed under a BSD license that allows companies to make derivative works and indeed distribute the original code in a binary only license?

There's a half truth going around about the GPL being viral and somehow infecting code you don't want to. We all know that's bull, but it's based in this truth. If you want to base a product on GPL code, you have to release any of your additions and modifications under the GPL as well, meaning you are giving away your code to the public. That's the price you knowingly pay up front for using GPL code (thus it isn't viral since you choose to use the available code, but later don't want to pay the price).

If tas payers fund a government body that creates some code, why should they use a license that requires that anyone else release their changes freely? Did not those corporations that might want to use the code pay taxes as well? Public domain is the fairest way for everyone to play ball.

Re:Software paid via public funding should not be

[mangu]

Public domain is the fairest way for everyone to play ball.

Agreed. And the GPL is what makes sure that it will stay in the public domain. Releasing software without the GPL will let anyone convert, with minor modifications, a software from public domain to proprietary. Where in the Constitution is it written that tax money should be used to give profit to corporations? If the corporations don't want to cope with the GPL they are free to write from scratch their own software. But they may also use the GPL software released by the government on the same basis as everyone else. How's that for a "fair way" for everyone to play ball?

Re:Software paid via public funding should not be

[tigga]

And the GPL is what makes sure that it will stay in the public domain. Releasing software without the GPL will let anyone convert, with minor modifications, a software from public domain to proprietary. Where in the Constitution is it written that tax money should be used to give profit to corporations?

That's bullshit.
Let's consider some non-GPL software like FreeBSD. Nokia and Juniper use FreeBSD in their routers. Have FreeBSD became proprietary? No. Are Nokia and Juniper's FreeBSD versions proprietary - yes. They are different OSes because of proprietary software included. Just consider them as branches.

BTW tax money were used to write software to use by government. If the same software might benefit somebody else it is even better. And I say it is good corporations make money from whatever software they use because emploeyes and stockholders also people.

And question for you - do you believe that GPLed software can't be used to give profits to corporations? So those Linux crowds who swear by Linux companies are wrong? ;)))

Re:Software paid via public funding should not be

[Sinterklaas]

In that case businesses take GPL code that all people paid for, modify it, profit from selling the binaries of the derivative and (possibly) not disclosing their new source? If businesses don't cooperate, people and the government then lose money.

Suppose that the software is available as public domain and a company sells a derivative. Then the people who pay for that are paying for the additions made by that company. You are free to use the costless, public domain version if you don't agree with that barg

Re:Software paid via public funding should not be

[Richard_at_work]

Companies pay taxes as well. If this were released into the public domain, or with a less laden license such as the BSDL, then both profit and non profit users would have the same starting position and no advantage over each other. Since companies help fund this, why shouldnt they be allowed to use the code in a closed manner? It doesnt diminish the value of the origional code release, and allows the funders to make use of it in a way that isnt dictated to them.

Re:Software paid via public funding should not be

[Richard_J_N]

There's also a pragmatic reason to favour GPL. Many OSS developers prefer GPL to BSD, and therefore you are more likely to get fixes if you release under GPL. Besdies which, it's a myth that GPL harms "commercial developers" - indeed they cannot take modifications closed, but they can certainly benefit from the use of the product, and they can even sell it.

Re:Software paid via public funding should not be

[akb]

If it were public domain a developer could create a derivative work and release that under whatever license they wanted. Additionally, Microsoft could include bits of the code in the next version of Windows and not have to disclose the rest of the Windows source.

Re:Software paid via public funding should not be

[akb]

But you then get a fork. The P.D. version gets rapidly abandoned, in favour of someone else's GPL fork, which doesn't really suit the govenment.

You can get a fork at any time with GPL software.
The government will pay the contractor to ensure that any upgrades to the software meet its requirements whether its GPL, public domain or proprietary. If the contractor thinks it can keep costs low by creating a GPL derivative work its free to do that.

Also MS could still ship GPL software with windows (like a

Re:Software paid via public funding should not be

[ctid]

If this were released into the public domain, or with a less laden license such as the BSDL, then both profit and non profit users would have the same starting position and no advantage over each other.

The best thing about the GPL is that it's simply not possible for a company to then exploit it without giving some benefit back to the people who paid for it. (And yes, I understand that companies pay taxes too). For example, the GPL prevents small, meaningless changes which simply change protocols without adding value.

Suppose you're a government funded researcher who produces some nice chat software which is placed into the public domain. What can stop AOL, which is a huge and influential company, from making a slight change to that software and then bundling it with AOL 10? If they bundle their new, incompatible chat software, they create a huge user-base without contributing anything. They could then leave it at that, or charge non-AOLers $10 if they want to be able to chat with their customers. You might argue that this is a good thing, but I think it's doubtful. And this approach isn't available to anyone except big SW companies.

Far better to use the GPL. If AOL wants to use the SW they paid for, they can do so. If they want to improve it, they can do that too, but they must distribute their source, so they can't create a huge "incompatibilty-hole" amongst the people who originally paid to produce the software.

Re:Software paid via public funding should not be

[Xoder]

Far better to use the GPL. If AOL wants to use the SW they paid for, they can do so. If they want to improve it, they can do that too, but they must distribute their source, so they can't create a huge "incompatibilty-hole" amongst the people who originally paid to produce the software.

This is patently incorrect. If they want to use (in any way, shape or (modified) form) GPL-ed software, they can do so without restriction. However, if they distribute it to someone who is not in-house, and have made modifications, they must also make the source available to them (and for that matter, to anyone else).

I hate it when people assist in the sullying of the GPL name when they attempt to defend it.

Re:Software paid via public funding should not be

[ctid]

This is patently incorrect. If they want to use (in any way, shape or (modified) form) GPL-ed software, they can do so without restriction. However, if they distribute it to someone who is not in-house, and have made modifications, they must also make the source available to them (and for that matter, to anyone else).

What you say makes sense only because you didn't quote the whole of my post. The example I was talking about involved AOL distributing the "enhanced" chat application to all of their customers

Re:Software paid via public funding should not be

[YU Nicks NE Way]

Why is software different from a road surface, or from police and fire protection? I payed for those, and I expect them to be available to me in the normal order of things. Companies exploit that fact for profit all the time. Why is code different?

Re:Software paid via public funding should not be

[Vengie]

The logic goes a bit like this:

For the sake of this argument, assume a better analogy -- a ladder and a series of pulleys. Every step you climb up the latter costs (something) and use of the pully is free. The government pays to have a pully hung at a certain level, and everyone may use that pully for free. In a BSD style license, a company may use the government pully and then climb the ladder a bit, setting their own pully and charging for use to that higher level. In the GPL style license, pulleys hung after using a free govt-derived pully must also have no cost.

Now, in this scenario, taxpayers fund the hanging of the first pully, for public use. But a company has a profit motive and wants to invest a little to get good results, so they use the first pully, climb a bit, and hang a new one. [Note: This metaphor encapsulates many of the dual-licensing schemes -- gpl & commercial use for proprietary product] They haven't paid back the taxpayers for their use of the pully. If the first govt hung pully had NOT been free, the company would have had to pay -- and taxpayers aren't being passed those savings. In short, the marginal investment of climbing a few steps is nothing without the prior [free] public investment....and as such, they shouldn't be able to charge for them.

[The typical retort is that "thit just shows how the GPL is viral, and that a few lines of GPL code can take over a huge project." If you have a huge project with thousands of lines of code, and you are incapable of writing your own proprietary 3 line solution to do the same thing as some GPL'd code, then you deserve to go bankrupt. ]

Re:Software paid via public funding should not be

[Lehk228]

umm, actually if AOL wanted to replace AIM with a pay service, they could still use an open protocol and open software, nothing prevents them from having paid account verification, If knowing how the software worked meant automatic access to the network, the network is really fucking insecure

Re:Software paid via public funding should not be

[wkitchen]

Far better to use the GPL. If AOL wants to use the SW they paid for, they can do so. If they want to improve it, they can do that too, but they must distribute their source, so they can't create a huge "incompatibilty-hole" amongst the people who originally paid to produce the software.

That's it exactly. A company that is dominant in some market can effectively destroy the value of PD software by ensuring that only their proprietary derivative will work with their dominant product or service. So even though they can't take the PD code away from anyone, they can take most of the value of that code for themselves, and effectively deny it to everyone else. And that has very nearly the same effect as if they could steal the PD code outright.

As for some posters comments about granting companies, who are also taxpayers, the same benefits as everyone else, I believe the GPL does that just fine. Under the GPL they have the same rights to use, modify, and distribute as individuals do. It just prevents them from gaining any special advantages compared to individual taxpayers or even other companies. And while PD would not prevent individuals from comitting such abuses, it would still produce a very unlevel playing field because large corporations are in an inherently better position to benefit from such practices.

So I believe that GPL is a much better choice for Government developed software than PD or BSD style licenses. Being able to reap some of the benefits of your tax dollars is good. Being able to destroy the value of those benefits for all other taxpayers is not.

Re:Software paid via public funding should not be

[Aim Here]

Yeah but firstly, the US government aids and abets proprietary software, which is much MORE restrictive than the GPL, so whining about the GPL without complaining about them is major-league hypocritical, and secondly, the GPL doesn't stop anyone profiting from the software, including companies, it just stops people profiting with certain types of business model that abuse people's freedom.

Re:Software paid via public funding should not be

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Companies pay taxes as well.

No they don't. Really. At first glance, it may appear that companies pay taxes but they really don't.
In fact, it is their customers that pay the taxes as part of the final price, the company is just a middleman.

Re:Software paid via public funding should not be

[boffy_b]

Many works of the US Gov't, the CIA, etc. are in the public domain, whilst I am a big beleiver in the GPL, I think it would be fairer for Tax-funded software to be in public domain.

Granted, the GPL doesn't actually prohibit MegaCorp(TM) from using it, but most MegeCorp's business plans are not (yet) GPL-compatible. Although, maybe if this large body of Gov't GPL software was approaching ubiquity for whatever it does, this may encourage MCs to accept it.

Re:Software paid via public funding should not be

[bcmm]

If it was totally free, then someone could instantly take it and GPL a slightly changed version. So you still would get a GPL one.
But I think this is because they would like anyone who uses it to add to it. It's to make sure public property stays public.

Re:Software paid via public funding should not be

[bcmm]

Many people would keep modifications under the GPL because they believe in it.
The GPL version would be likely to rapidly become better than the original.
I meant modified code.
Sorry for unintentionally speaking nonsense.

Re:Software paid via public funding should not be

[ifwm]

What about hardware? I'd really love to try one of those F-22's....

Re:Software paid via public funding should not be

[Saeger]

What about hardware? I'd really love to try one of those F-22's....

Then you'll just have to wait for open molecular manufacturing [foresight.org] like the rest of us.

--

Re:Software paid via public funding should not be

[nwbvt]

I agree, though with a few exceptions (clearly some government projects need to remain behind closed doors). The public funds these projects, thus the public should be able to use them however we wish. Keeping the code under the GPL keeps a large segment of the public who paid for it (corporations looking to sell proprietary software) from using it.

As the article states, the government is supposed to be required to put out code in the 'public domain', it appears they had to use a loophole in the law to get this done.

Perhaps an exception for the LGPL would work here. The code could be used with commericial products while still keeping with the copy-left philosophy.

Using it != getting profits

[mangu]

Keeping the code under the GPL keeps a large segment of the public who paid for it (corporations looking to sell proprietary software) from using it.

Anyone can use GPL software, but not everyone may be able to profit from it. Think about roads maintained by taxes. Anyone can drive over them, but corporations cannot charge tolls on people who use them.

Why should corporations have the sacred right to get profits from software developed for the government, but not from roads built for the government?

Re:Using it != getting profits

[mangu]

OK, analogies are always dangerous. But, note that you mention trucking companies that profit from *using* roads, not from *charging* others for using roads. GPL software is exactly like that. Any company may profit from using GPL software, but they may be restricted in getting profit from charging other people for using that software.

Re:Software paid via public funding should not be

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you mean corporations looking to sell proprietary software such as Cisco & Microsoft, who pay no federal income tax?

Sure they don't pay federal income tax, but that doesn't mean that they don't pay large sums of money over to government leaders in other ways.

Re:Software paid via public funding should not be

[nwbvt]

Strange, the article I read only speculated that the corporation did not pay federal income taxes (there are a lot of other ways Uncle Sammy gets money from corporations). Maybe you got a different article. If so, please provide the article you read that says the company and its employees/investors paid no taxes at all as I would like to read it. Really, it sounds very interesting.

Anyways, here [microsoft.com] is MS's Annual Report which seems to state they paid nearly $5 billion in income taxes. Maybe you don't thin

Agreed

[John Miles]

I don't get to put "license restrictions" on the taxes I pay, so the government should not be allowed to put license restrictions on code it develops with those taxes.

The GPL is fine for private authors to adopt if that's what they prefer, but it should have no place in the public sector. As another poster points out, it unfairly favors some users over others.

Re:Agreed

[Hatta]

It does not unfairly favor any users, just certain uses. These uses are fundamentally antisocial and ought to be discouraged whenever possible.

Re:Agreed

[Waffle Iron]

I don't get to put "license restrictions" on the taxes I pay, so the government should not be allowed to put license restrictions on code it develops with those taxes.

Ok, but then why should you be allowed to put license restrictions on that tax-funded code?

Re:Agreed

[John Miles]

Ok, but then why should you be allowed to put license restrictions on that tax-funded code?

I never said I should be allowed to do that. Using the code is not the same as restricting the code.

As long as I can't take the code away from you, you shouldn't care what I do with it. If I want to fork it into a private closed-source project, and lose the benefits of further public development, then that's my mistake to make, right?

Re:Software paid via public funding should not be

[Bull999999]

If you RTFA, you've realized that:

"Subject matter of copyright: United States Government works: Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise."

For example, Diebold voting software is government funded project but it alone did not make it a public domain, where is in this case, one of the vendor released its

Re:Software paid via public funding should not be

[PatHMV]

Diebold software is not paid for by the U.S. government. Voting machines are purchased by state and/or local governments. The federal government doesn't pay for or control them. And the copyright limitations put on the U.S. government by the law cited don't apply to state and local governments.

Drugs developed through public funding...

[baywulf]

should be free. It should be free without any restrictions on its use.

Re:Drugs developed through public funding...

[SlashdotLemming]

but then no-one would make them, you dildo

He's just whoring for some karma. Let the poor boy be.
The mods eat up the "think of the children" posts and it keeps your head above water between trolls (ie. really speaking your mind)

Re:Drugs developed through public funding...

[baywulf]

I didn't say all drugs have to be free...I just said that those developed through public funding. Companies are free to patent drugs they developed and funded themselves. Why should the government interfere with the free market?

Re:Software paid via public funding should not be

[peter_gzowski]

From the article:

In many cases, assuming the software is not proprietary, the work is available to the whole government for unlimited use and it falls under the public domain. Public domain materials can be requested by anyone, but in practice the people who know about an internal government project are limited. Thus, being available to the public does not mean anyone would know to ask [for it]. So is it really public?

A little later:

The advantage of an Open Source Software license is that the code mus

yes

[SHEENmaster]

The GPL requires redistribution of the source code with any binary, or at least the offer of that code should the receiving party wish to obtain it. Public domain software, while free of any copyright, may be distributed in binary form with no public access to the source code. Public domain isn't necessarily open source.

Re:Software paid via public funding should not be

[deanj]

Ah, spoken as someone that has never worked in a government funded organization.

Public universities would never, ever go for this, and they shouldn't.

Public funding is a grant; The same way that public funding for the arts is a grant. Once funded, the government can't swoop in and take what was done.

The government shouldn't be putting any restrictions on what people do with the money they get, and that includes MAKING someone put work in the public domain. ANY work. That includes software.

A lot of

Re:Software paid via public funding should not be

[akb]

But what is the domain of the public?

"Public domain" has a specific meaning when applied in the copyright sense. It means a work over which no one may claim copyright protection.

I'd say that the domain needs to be limited to US citizens only. ... It might not be morally correct, but it's how the government sees it.

That's really weird, you express a personal opinion and then (erroneously) say that its the position of the USG. You are 100 percent wrong. USG works are in the public domain, as such, an

No real innovation...

[sammyo]

But now the Linux kernal will be rewritten in ADA!

Public Funds, Public Software

[deutschemonte]

I think that all publicly funded software (except that with a security concern) should be released under the GPL. The people paid to have it made, the people should be the ones to benefit from it.

Balderdash

[John Starks]

Absolute balderdash. Government software should be in the public domain. Here's why:

First of all, companies paid for the software too through taxes. I don't understand why you think that they should be prevented from ADDING VALUE to the software and reselling it. It's not that the company is STEALING the software from the people; the people still have exactly the software that the government created. But when companies ADD VALUE, they should be able to sell that ADDED VALUE at the market price. If th

Re:Public Funds, Public Software

[nwbvt]

" They can use it on exactly the same terms as everyone else. There is no sense in which they are being dsciminated against."

I repeast, no, they cannot use it in their product while the OSS developer can.

"Or that the government building roads is discriminating against people who don't have drive cars."

The reason we let the government help build roads despite that fact is because there is no viable alternative way to get the job done. That is not the case with software development. They could easily

Re:Public Funds, Public Software

[deutschemonte]

While it is true that both individuals and corporate entities have equal rights to GPL'ed code, neither one can profit from it. The other poster's logic is incorrect because the reasoning is that if the company cannot repackage it and sell it, then it will not be of any use to them. Quite to the contrary, they can use it internally for their own purposes to save them money on developing software on their own. In short, there are many other uses in a company for GPL'ed OSS that do not include profiting fr

Re:Public Funds, Public Software

[strider_starslayer]

If america starts releasing specialised BSD software with the restriction that it can only be used in the USA; angry finnish programers will release all there code specifically that it cannot be used in the USA; it's not a good soluiton.

Having said that- I do think that a BSD styled release would be best- this way companies searching for a profit stream can use it as well; but have to at least admit that they did.

SELinux

[cbr2702]

What about SELinux? I belive the NSA paid for its development and it is GPL'd.

Re:SELinux

[qtp]

What about SELinux?

And Don Becker's ethernet drivers. (of NASA)

And the Beowulf software. (Also from NASA)

Not to detract from the importance of OPen Source in tax-funded development, but the federal government has been producing GPLed code for some time now.

Is it just me...

[JayBlalock]

or is it inexpressibly sad that this ISN'T a no-brainer? That so many people apparently have no problem with the government taking our tax money and using it to fund projects that never see the light of day? Whatever the government uses my money for, unless releasing it endangers national security, it SHOULD be released for the public to use. We paid for it, after all. And the private sector can undoubtedly come up with applications for it the government didn't think of. Everybody wins.

Re:Is it just me...

[JoeCommodore]

Just try to get your contracted company to *give* you the source code of the program they developed with your money. As a small non-profit we see alot of our fellow agencies spend umpteen thousand dollars in deveopment costs for thier agency's programs only to have thier contractor turn to the other agencies in the field to sell it again to them as well.

The next problem is that if a cash strapped agency (and 100% of non-profits usually are) does get the source code, that non-profit itself will turn around

Re:Is it just me...

[JayBlalock]

Either\or. I just hate hearing about the government flushing our money down the tubes with projects that never go anywhere. I'm not JUST talking software. WHATEVER the government produces with our money should be released back to us when the government is done with it. Software just makes such a great example since it costs nothing to release the source code.

get ready for the irony ...

[akb]

Wow, it sounds like you think its unpatriotic to release code under a license that doesn't restrict uses to the US.

How might things have turned out differently if those foreigners that started the Linux kernel, Mysql, OpenBSD, Python, Ruby, KDE, Mplayer, etc had said the same thing about letting American's profit off of their software.

Closed source+money==laws to extract more SW money

[cryophan]

Govt should fund open source SW, as closed source SW vendors will use their power and money to create laws that will close down OSS. That is really the blind spot of libertarians, free traders, etc--they fail to see to see how the so-called "free maeket" is really just a license to allow wealthy entities (e.g., corporations, etc) to manipulate and control lesser entities (i.e., all the rest of us so-called "humans".) If we want an increasingly high standard of living, then we have to engineer a government that will give it to us. Govt is just a machine. Designing machines has NEVER been easy. There aint no such as a free lunch, and a free market is certainly no free lunch, although it comes pretty close to that for corporations and the wealthy and upper income class.

I did S[kim]TFA ...

[magefile]

But I couldn't figure out what this guy's software actually does. Anyone?

I think it makes sense

[goon america]

If you take the position that software is a natural monopoly [auburn.edu] like the phone company used to be, then it only makes sense that it should be socialized rather than trying to regulate it into behaving (like they used to try to do with the phone company).

Re:I think it makes sense

[Hatta]

What makes you think software is a natural monopoly?

Re:I think it makes sense

[goon america]

near-zero marginal costs, average cost declines to near-zero, and there are network externalities in several different areas.

Translation: the cost of copying software is ~0 per unit, if including the investment cost of developing it will slowly average down to ~0, and the value of a piece of software increases with how popular it is (amount of support available, interoperability with other kinds of software or hardware, having everyone know the same thing, being "the standard" everone is supposed to be fa

Re:I think it makes sense

[quantaman]

The only time that software can be a natural monopoly is when closed standards are used preventing interoperability (ie Microsoft). When open standards are used (as among *nix) it is anything but a natural monopoly (observe multiple flavours of unix, linux, BSD)

Re:I think it makes sense

[ScrewMaster]

Yes, but when it was regulated (actually, as a govenment instituted and regulated monopoly) the phone company largely did behave. At least, they had quality-of-service standards that they had to live up to. The near-complete de-degulation of the phone system is what has caused most of the problems since the breakup of old AT&T. That, and a general degradation in business ethic among the corporate elite.

Re:I think it makes sense

[goon america]

Problems like cell phones?

Wouldnt a bsd style license work here

[voss]

ie public domain but you must give credit in the source code?

I know most people are in love with the GPL
but the government stuff is free...id rather just let users use it free while ensuring that it was not appropriated or falsely credited to a private company.

Re:Wouldnt a bsd style license work here

[matrix0f8h]

Why prefer that?

The GPL would represent the peak performance of a society/government: No duplication of effort.

Competition, capitalism, and general 'survival of the fittest' is not the only way forward. Cooperation, sharing, and intelligence is also an option.

Huh? Lots of Gov Software is GPL

[HermanAB]

What is news about this, apart from the misconception that it is the first Gov funded GPL software? Hellooooo... Has anyone ever heard of DARPA?

Re:Huh? Lots of Gov Software is GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Two very popular "free" packages come from government funded (controlled) origins. Proj (http://proj.maptools.org/, MIT style licence) is perhaps the defacto standard in map projection software. It started life in the USGS. Nedit (http://www.nedit.org/, GPL), one of the very popular text editors, started life in the Fermi Lab (?). Both probably were released under the radar of red tape type administrators and both are now safely housed and supported outside government. It is hard to see their governme

not the first

[drfrog]

freewrl might be though!!
freewrl [sourceforge.net]

freewrl has been funded by the canadian government for a few years now

Not the first and by far

[guerby]

The first GPL required US government funded project I know of is the NYU GNAT project which is an Ada GCC front-end, see History in Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]

This was back in 1994 or some such.

Laurent
[e-mail]

NSA Secure Linux is GPL

[Animats]

NSA Secure Linux is GPL. It has to be, since it's a set of patches to Linux. It's now part of the standard kernel, even.

The US gov. is helping terror!!!!!

[(1)down]

if you ask Mr. McBride

Check your local RFPs

[danharan]

Just this week a local government department released an RFP for a high-value (>CAD$50k) project which requires exactly what EZRO offers. Odd, isn't it?

In the answer to this RFP, you must indicate if your solution already implements a series of features, or whether it can be accomplished in the next 3 months. So that's 3 months and at least $50k to add features to an OSS project...

It seems very odd to me that we should insist that it is the government that should release the software, when it is much simpler to sell them modifications to software that's already open.

I'm not 100% clear how to accomplish that goal yet.

Looking for RFP's to bid on doesn't give you much time to research existing projects and get used to the codebase and start contributing features. Trying to get a good comparison of various projects -assuming you managed to find enough to compare- is often like trying to understand theological arguments.

Alternatively, you could just specialize in or start an OSS project that you knew was going to be needed by many agencies (Collision information management system, electronic medical record...), get a team together and bid on all RFPs on the subject, starting with the ones requiring the least features/customization.

Either way, there are low-hanging fruits here where we can underbid the commercial vendors with technically superior solutions.

Has anyone tried this kind of approach? Are there any domains you know that are ripe for an OS solution?

why donate?

[akb]

I have to say I found the article lacking on a couple key points.

First, since DevIS owned the copyright they could have released it as GPL. Why donate it the USG at all, especially if it cost them $20k to do so?

Second, once the USG had the copyright, why was it licensed under the GPL. What interest does the government find served by having the code under GPL? Specifically, since USG info is usually public domain why not release it as that? I have heard plenty of people on /. say why they think its a good idea but I have no idea what reasons the USG thinks.

It sounds like the Open Source Industry Alliance wants to be able to say that the USG owns a piece of GPL'd code. Maybe that's good, maybe there's a strategy, but I can't tell from the article.

Giving credit where credit is due.

[jbn-o]

The GNU General Public License (GPL) was written years before there was an "open source" movement. Linking together the open source movement with the GPL misstates history and authorship. The language used in the GPL and the freedoms it talks about are not part of the philosophy of the open source movement, they are part of the free software movement which created the free software community we still enjoy today 20 years later. The real author of the GPL is the FSF (most notably, Richard Stallman and Eben Moglen). In a post to the GCC mailing list responding to someone who wanted to help the "open source community", RMS said [gnu.org]

Open source advocates do contribute to our community, when they work on free software packages, but our community is older than that movement, and owes its existence to the idealism that movement rejects. It was built by the free software movement, so it is the free software community. If you help us, please keep in mind that what you're helping is the free software movement.

ESR would similarly miscredit the open source movement when he referred to a number of programs [catb.org] as "open-source" projects even though they were written before that movement existed:

[...] Many other open-source projects of the order of complexity of the early Linux kernel predated it; the BSD Unixes, for example, or the Emacs editor. [...]

Maybe the authors of the various BSD OSes and the authors of the Linux kernal don't mind being lumped in with that movement, but ESR also includes Emacs which was co-written by RMS, founder of the free software movement. Emacs was most certainly not written with the open source movement in mind nor to benefit those ideals. Emacs was written to benefit the free software movement. RMS has repeatedly stated how he does not want to be lumped in with the open source movement. The FSF provides a concise and informative description of the differences between the two movements [gnu.org] which includes RMS asking the reader to know enough about the movements to distinguish between their philosophies.

So what did the open source movement do? The Open Source Initiative placed the GPL on a list of approved licenses. Open source advocates have contributed to practical projects and endorsed the GPL. I'm sure the free software advocates have no issue with endorsing the GPL and increasing its use. But the reason this license protects ones freedoms to share and modify software so well is not due to anything anyone at the OSI or the open source movement has done. Thus it is not fair for that movement to receive credit for the GPL.

Freedom Of Information Act

[amdg]

I don't understand why this sort of thing doesn't happen more often. In fact, I suspect that the GPL license, may be too restrictive and not enforceable. US citizens have a right to receiving that code (and other information) in the public domain under the US Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). [usdoj.gov] (There are limits regarding national security, etc.) This has already been done with software in the past.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs has been actively developing and using the VistA [va.gov] (Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture) software since the 1980's. This software has a proven track record and is used in hundreds of healthcare facilities of all sizes. Many agree that it is at least as good as multi-million dollar systems from companies like Siemens, GE, Cerner, and McKesson.

The VistA software has already been released to the public domain under the US Freedom of Information Act. Since then an active open source community has grown around that freely available code and is even being used in non-government facilities around the world. More recently the open source community and the VA developers have begun discussions on how to combine their efforts.

So if you know of any useful software developed by the US government, speak up and ask for it to be opened up so everyone can benefit!!

You must register to download?

[KidSock]

If you actually attempt to download the software you get a registration page that reads:

Workforce ConnectionsTM Source and Installation Download

In order to download the complete Workforce ConnectionsTM source code and installation software, you must provide your information including a valid email address. The password to enable you to download the files will be sent to that email. Please provide the following information.

I'm glad to see GPL software on a .GOV site but is this ok with the GPL?

I can think of nothing better...

[Genda]

Our government has increasingly over the last serveral decades lost sight of itself as an essential service. That is, a necessary evil, that needs to be pruned within an inch of it's life on a regular basis, and who's only reason for existence is the ability to provide certain global services in a method and manner more cost effective and efficiently than 50 smaller institutions tiled over the face of our nation.

Producing, using, and supporting GPLed software is precisely the kind of behavior one would hope from a government which was, benevolent, transparent, committed to providing superior service to it's citizens, and working towards a growing common resource that each and every citizen could use and prosper from. Nothing could be more democratic, and nothing could improve our current society more than loosening the grip of special interests.

Let our government be a service to all it's citizens. Promote a future that insures the value of the commons, and promotes the health and happiness of the common man.

Genda

Re:What about SELinux?

[ncurses]

Yeah, when I want security enhanced, I'll stick with tinfoil hat, thank you very much.

Re:Good or Evil?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this story from the good Linux Journal or from its evil twin?

You're thinking of Linux Gazette [slashdot.org]. Or possibly Linux Today [slashdot.org]. I don't think Linux Journal has caught onto the trend for having an evil identity yet. Still it might be a good idea to start a boycott now and beat the rush when they do.

Re:I will agree that is cool...

[Bull999999]

Here's a quick /. mod guide:

MS software sucks (+1 informative)

MS software can be made relatively secure (-1 troll)

Bill Gates sucks donkey dick (+1 funny)

Bill gates donates money to the charity (-1 flamebait)

Posts about how we are controled by the big corporation (+1 insiteful)

Posts about breaking corporation by education and boycotts (-1 troll)

Posts about how the government should provide everything (+1 underrated)

Posts about some people needing to get off of their lazy asses to work (-1 overrated)

Re:I will agree that is cool...

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

Here's two more rules:

1) The type of first moderation of a comment will most likely be the type of all moderations. Maybe moderation could do with a metamoderation interface: don't see the existing scores or author, just rate +1, 0, or -1 (no reason?), and rate relatively recent comments. Finalize the score if it would have reached -2 or 6.

2) An offtopic reply to an offtopic part of a comment will be accepted, but a reply to that comment will be Offtopicked.

Re:I think OSS is an inevitable step...

[azaris]

The simple fact is that proprietary systems gradually grow old, flaky, clunky, bloated and support is withdrawn from them (just witness the EOLs of various versions of Windows and Red Hat Linux we hear about here now and then).

No, the simple fact is that all systems gradually grow old, flaky, chunky, bloated and finally no one is around who can figure out what's happening. I've seen enough examples of companies buying a customized software solution (with source and everything) and years afterwards having

Re:I think OSS is an inevitable step...

[Pros_n_Cons]

Windows and Red Hat Linux we hear about here now and then). Open source software, on the other hand
What do you think Red Hat is? It has been forked more times than I can count and It's software ended up in every major distro. Red Hat isn't Microsoft, it isn't Sun, it isn't Intel okay?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Govt. releasing software as GPL should be illeg

[Quill_28]

Word can't express how much I agree with this statement. Mod up.