Is the GPL an appropriate Gov't license?
Displaying poll results.19062 total votes.
Most Votes
- By the end of 2026, how useful do you think agentic/multi-agent AI systems will actually be in your daily work or personal projects? Posted on March 11th, 2026 | 13985 votes
Most Comments
- By the end of 2026, how useful do you think agentic/multi-agent AI systems will actually be in your daily work or personal projects? Posted on March 11th, 2026 | 40 comments
No, because... (Score:5, Insightful)
The GPL prevents people from releasing derivative works without providing all the changes that they worked hard to innovate with the code. While this is perfectly acceptable for privately-funded projects, it doesn't make sense that the government place such restrictions on code when it is, in effect, owned by all (that includes corporations, who also pay taxes). So, while the code developed by the government should remain freely available in its original form, it makes no sense to require people to release their own improvements to the code. It was developed for the benefit of all, and should thereby be allowed to benefit all, financially or otherwise.
Re:No, because... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No, because... (Score:2, Insightful)
Conpanies profit this way all the time.
The thing is, in mocst cases the public profits from the company's profitting.
You're forgetting, that if a company value-adds to software, it's the *value-added* portion that you're paying for, not the original. After all, the original is freely available to download, so how can you be paying for that? Okay, you might also be paying for a nice box, typeset manual, support etc. too.
But they're not profitting off what YOU paid for. They're profitting off what they added to that.
Seems fair enough to me.
Especially since many companies DO pay tax. Don't complain about the license, complain about the tax laws that let MegaCorp., Inc. avoid paying tax.
Not what I paid for? I think so (Score:4, Insightful)
But they're not profitting off what YOU paid for. They're profitting off what they added to that.
So you are saying that when HP hardly added anything to X and sold it as their product for lots of money, people were paying the money because they valued the few lines of modification to the original source so much?
That's total nonsense. HP just made sure people had to use their software with their hardware and asked money for it. They estimated what people would be willing to pay for the total product and set their price accordingly. People definitely did pay for all the free (as in X11 licensed) work that was available to them at no cost as well.
Re:Not what I paid for? I think so (Score:5, Insightful)
In some cases it's going to seem that way, but in most situations I believe it's actually not going to be like that at all.
An example would be someone taking a FreeBSD base and making an entirely new operating system on top of it and calling it their own. Could this happen? Yes. Would you pay for it? Probably not. You'd still get FreeBSD for free if given the choice, unless the changes they make are worth paying for.
That being said, they might make relatively few changes and they might charge a whole crapload for them. But if you're willing to pay good money for those changes, then obviously as few as they may be they must be pretty damned good.
I don't hear people complaining that Apple should be giving away Mac OS X for free. Why? Because all of the changes they've made are value added changes. Does it prevent you from using FreeBSD if you prefer it? Well, of course not, but few people out there would deny that Apple has built on BSD in a very positive way, and should be allowed to charge for the changes. Anyone who would deny this probably has a hard time paying for any software to begin with, I'm thinking.
Taking it private is a loss to the public sphere (Score:5, Interesting)
There are a lot of software tools that are initially developed in Universities with government sponsorship, then they get commercialized, and all the active and interesting development is happening in diverging private branches, and the public never sees it again. The original version will not be kept up to date with new features and fixes. GPL like licensing is a way to keep things public, and it is a good thing. Also, GPL does not keep commercial entities from using the projects, just from profiting from excusive ownership of a derived program. There are many better ways to make money.
Re:Taking it private is a loss to the public spher (Score:3, Informative)
Michael
your argument is actually for the (L)GPL (Score:3, Interesting)
That's not a very canonical example. A better example for government software might be something like the Kerberos library. The risk, if it isn't covered by the LGPL, is that a company like Microsoft takes it, makes a bunch of incompatible changes, and forces it on their user community. And that's exactly what has happened.
That being said, they might make relatively few changes and they might charge a whole crapload for them. But if you're willing to pay good money for those changes, then obviously as few as they may be they must be pretty damned good.
What planet are you from? I have had to pay for Microsoft Windows with almost every PC I have bought, and Windows includes a lot of software under BSD licenses. And, believe me, I did not think that what Microsoft did to that software was any good. Yet, by being able to take that software closed source, Microsoft has been able to save a lot of development costs.
I don't hear people complaining that Apple should be giving away Mac OS X for free.
If the government-sponsored parts of OS X (mostly, the BSD-derived stuff) were covered by the GPL rather than BSD, nothing would change: Apple is already giving those parts away. The main distinctive parts of OS X are the GUI and the end user applications, and they would not be affected by the GPL license.
Re:No, because... (Score:2)
Re:No, because... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No, because... (Score:2)
Yes, but so could anyone. The only thing you wouldn't have would be the *modifications* the company made. You'd still have what they started with (with the BSD license). So they would be protecting only their own modifications.
IE, if my taxes pay for such projects I should be able to access the code.
And you would have access to everything the tax dollars created. Again, just not the code the companies financed on their own (eg the modifications).
I personally like the BSD license for things like this. Let the public (which, of course, includes companies) benefit from what their tax dollars paid for, and let them do with it what they will. Just because it's BSD- and not GPL-licensed doesn't mean you have to be a rich company to access the code released under the license. It just means that anyone who makes changes to the code doesn't have to release those changes, which will encourage more companies to utilize the code. It doesn't deprive you of anything, except for free access to code the company in question may have spent lots of money having done.
Re:No, because... Wha? (Score:5, Insightful)
A great deal of research at universities (and other such institutions) is funded by federal funding organizations, such as NSF, DARPA and NIST. These organizations use tax-payer money to fund research, YOUR money. A great deal of the fruits of these efforts are publicly published, without IP protection of any sort (in many cases a requirement). In fact, thats supposed to be the point of public research, its meant to be a collaborative, collective, efficient (concise) [global] effort.
So in effect public research, funded by tax dollars produce benefit (fruits of research). Private institutions are completely free to leverage the benefits that flow from public research. In fact, if you look at the mandate of some of these funding organizations you'll see that they specifically encourage research that produce industrially applicable results that lead to economic benefit. Such research is usually referred to as 'useful' or 'good'.
From a social/economic efficiency standpoint you should encourage publicly spent money to build tools available to everybody, including private industry. If industry benefits then so do you when you go to buy the products of that industry! (As long as you believe in capitalism)
Re:No, because... (Score:3, Insightful)
The line between public government and private corporation starts getting even blurrier when the corporation is as big as your average 1900's European nation-state but doesn't have to worry about anything public-works related aside from buying health insurance and paying taxes.
Should there even be a line at all? What would this line look like?
Re:No, because... (Score:3, Insightful)
The money to develop it would have been paid anyway so it's not going to cost you anything. So... let's consider the differences between GPL and BSD in this situation:
BSD: corporations can benefit; they will generate larger revenues than without it and therefore it's good for the economy. The fact that some people that didn't contribute are benefiting from this will not do any harm at all.
GPL: corporations cannot use GPL in many cases and therefore probably have to rewrite the code instead of being able to re-use the GPL code. Result: less revenue, less tax paid. So the whole idea of letting the tax-payers benefit from open source software developed with the money they paid does not work if you use the GPL; the main tax-payers cannot use it! Choosing a GPL license for publicly funded software can only be explained by egoism of the non-corporate tax-payers:P
Conclusion: letting others benefit for free will not really harm you, not letting companies benefit from this Open Source Software WILL harm you since they will have to spend more money on development and therefore will pay less taxes. Also in both cases most corporations will not produce much open source software anyway so it's wise to choose the option that let's the biggest tax-payers benefit.
Re:No, because... (Score:3, Insightful)
You would always have access to the code your taxes paid for under the BSD license. What you would NOT have access to is the code the corporation wrote in creating a derivative work. In short, their intellectual property. In any case, most companies do still pay whatever taxes they are legally required to pay and therefore do have a right to the works created by the government. (Yes, I know about the tax loopholes, but that is another issue entirely.)
A BSD-style license is fair for public works because it is partial to no one. It just throws the code out into the open for all to use as they please. (This is also the way the government currently does things, with public domain.) The GPL is very partial to open source. One could easily argue that the government is being biased against software corporations in releasing GPL'd software.
The thing some people forget about a democracy is that it is not *your* taxes that fund the project, but *our* taxes. By GPL'ing code, you're only making it accessible to some taxpayers. How fair is that?
Re:No, because... (Score:2, Insightful)
Say, I create the perfect RoboTank script (you know, one of those "program a tank" games; I just made the name up), and the US army wants to utilize it on the battlefield (this is just a what-if question), and modify it a bit and distribute it to all its tanks, but not release the modifications for obvious reasons.
Then, they should negotiate with me for alternative licensing, which would probably cost some. Of course, this should be a non-extortionate sum...
Re:No, because... (Score:2)
Try doing this with an FSF project. I will give anyone $5 who can make RMS "sell out"...
Re:No, because... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No, because... (Score:2)
But then I suppose that would obligate people who wanted to use the new code to buy the value-added piece. Well, I suppose you're probably right. A new license would have to be negotiated.
Re:No, because... (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, because (Score:4, Informative)
1- http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequi
So, the GPL is the appropiate license for gov use, because the importance of open source and the freedom for distribution.
Re:Yes, because (Score:2)
Re:No, because... (Score:2)
Re:No, because... (Score:2)
Let's hear it for democracy.
The shops that are 100% gov't are usually working on classified stuff anyway, like the NSA or DARPA, so the license doesn't matter there.
Re:No, because... (Score:2, Interesting)
How about a full out "BSD for individuals and non-profits and Commercial Use Licensing Plan for for-profit use that has a 10 percent of gross revenues for 5 years"?
I mean hey, if you want to profit from your investment, why shouldn't "the public" profit from their investment. But then you'd have to debate over just how much should be charged. It's just so much easier to go with the GPL.
So it constrains your business model. Tough. It constrains everyone else's business model too, including your competitors who want to use the code, so at least it's a level playing field.
Re:No, because... (Score:2)
Re:No, because... (Score:2)
I guess it comes down to wether you are more paranoid about big corporations taking public code, or big governments taking private code.
Re:No, because... (Score:2)
Think Global (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a very nice idea that a government could give something back to the people and corporations that pay taxes, but when that benefit is intellectual property, how do you prevent it from falling into non-taxpayer hands? This is like when British citizens complain that the BBC's website is overloaded by international users: they paid for the bandwidth and server capacity, and you're stealing it from them. How do you keep other countries' companies (who are competing with your own) from stealing your code?
The most closed license that would be reasonable is one that acts as the BSD for locals and acts as the GPL for foreigners.
Re:Think Global (Score:2)
The only way to enforce IP restrictions with other gov'ts is via treaty. IP can be treated like a physical good only due to national laws. So, make some treaty.
But the specifics of what you're describing would be almost impossible to iron out cleanly. Can the locals release it in such a form that it's BSD for furriners? Can the gov't decide via treaty that some other nation is allowed in the BSD umbrella? Wouldn't BSD and GPL forks of an identical product be difficult to maintain?
Iduno. Maybe those aren't too hard. But I'm sure there are harder problems in the arrangement.
Re:No, because... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No, because... (Score:3, Funny)
That's sort of like saying you learned how to be a brain surgeon from watching Simpsons episodes with Dr Nick Riviera in them ("Hi Dr Nick!").
This article [zooko.com] sums up some of the commonly used licenses. Also try this page [google.com] which will tell you a lot more about the pros and cons of the various open source licenses.
Re:No, because... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No, because... (Score:2)
The point is that if someone does not personally agree with the GPL (they don't want to be forced to open their code, or they want to be able to sell it), they would be unlikely to modify government code if it were GPL'd. On the other hand, if the government code were under the BSD license, that person could modify it however he pleased and release his modifications however he pleased (be that BSD, GPL, or closed). The original code is still available, but developers are more free with their own work when the BSD license is used. That is why people think the BSD license would be good for government work.
GPL good; BSD better (for tax-funded stuff) (Score:5, Insightful)
But BSD is better (for tax-funded ventures) because it lets corporations take the development they helped fund, add some value to it, and sell that value they added (as opposed to just giving that value away, which means that companies aren't going to want to do development on these projects at all.)
lGPL is also a great choice, in that a company can incororate a free project into a for-sale product. They just have to keep a clear distinction between what is owned by the company, and owned by the community. This ussually means that some enhancements will have to be made to the project, and must be given back to the community, while the company still makes a profit.
Re:GPL good; BSD better (for tax-funded stuff) (Score:2, Insightful)
Any company that works on government projects aren't doing it for the fun of it, they are getting paid. If a company has a legitimate need for government derived software, why shouldn't they be expected to give back? Once again, it is a difference for the public good or for the good of the individual. I would have to side on the communist side, even though many would not.
Lets be honest folks, the only ones that are against giving code back to the community are the software development companies. In-house software development is usually never distributed to an external agency, so there is no source distribution issue. So, these strictly software development houses have a choice, have code under GPL or under BSD? Well, BSD means we have no obligation to release source, and we are deriving of the hard work of others for our own cash gain. GPL means that we have to find value adds in the products we distribute.
If you were a software company CEO, why would you ever release software under the BSD license? Hence, your point is moot
Re:GPL good; BSD better (for tax-funded stuff) (Score:2)
If they are doing it for the government, yes. But I think the parent was referring to doing development on the publically-released code. No company will invest money in improving code that was released under the GPL.
You have to keep this in mind: code released under a BSD-like license, and later modified by a "company" (which could be anyone, really) is not stolen code. The company is profiting off of one of the following:
- Modifications made to the code
- Better packaging or distribution of the code
Modifications should be profitable. No for-profit company in their right mind is going to put the effort required to improve code if it meant not making a profit.
Better packaging -- this is where a company takes code that is BSD licensed, and packages it in a way that makes it profitable. Combine the two and you have the Windows 2000 IP stack: FreeBSD code, packaged up into Windows, that they are able to profit from. Illegal? Not at all. Immoral? I personally don't think so. It is packaged as an integral part of Windows, and I can't imagine any other way to have used such code that would please some of the zealots out there aside from releasing the full source to Windows.
Anyway, I like the BSD license. Using the code for profit does not deny anyone anything; you, and everyone else, still has access to the same code they had. What you don't have is access to the changes they made, or the other code that happens to be bundled with it. Which, IMO, is totally their right. I hate MS, but their use of BSD code for the TCP/IP stack is, in my opinion, completely justified by the license, and takes nothing away from anyone.
Re:GPL good; BSD better (for tax-funded stuff) (Score:2, Insightful)
If private interests want to use publicly-produced code for their own purposes, I don't think it's unreasonable for the public to demand access to the source modifications.
At the very least, they should have to pay to incorporate it into closed-source commercial software.
bad reasoning, forces duplication of work. (Score:3, Interesting)
But BSD is better (for tax-funded ventures) because it lets corporations take the development they helped fund, add some value to it, and sell that value they added (as opposed to just giving that value away, which means that companies aren't going to want to do development on these projects at all.)
First, you can do this with the GPL. It's fair game to add closed and restictive modules to GPL software. It's not a nice or good thing to do, but you can sell works which call on
GPL'd routines to get work done. If you distribute the GPL'd work, you simply have to provide the source code to that. All the "value" you added is still yours, though no one may be interested in it. I can make a silly program that uses X11, ispell and other calls, no? Real work and inovation is not derivative.
Second, why would you want to do this? If you are not going to distribute your code you can do what you want anyway. If you do want to distribute your code, why would you want to close it up? So you can gimp it all up, make it so it does not work with the orignial and charge people money? No thanks. This forces a tragedy of the commons where the orignial source code rots while two or three companies come out with programs that are incompatible and inferior to software that's free to begin with.
Third, name one piece of government funded software that would not have happened if the license required was GPL. Companies that do this work survive on their reputations and knowledge. The government has money, people bid to get it done, the lowest bidder does the work and that's the story.
New style license needed? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a case of being to restrictive and not restrictive enough.
First of all I start with the assumption that the code was developed using taxpayers money for whatever particular level of government that is developing the project.
Now if you release this under a GPL style license then everyone who wants to use the code will have to submit their changes back into the community, if they distribute their code. But why should they have to do this if they have already paid for the code? (via taxes) Should it not be freely usable with no obligation since it was paid for?
Which brings us to a BSD style license. Here anyone can freely use the code, including those who had contributed absolutely nothing to its development. People will have a problem with your tax dollars funding (insert country x here)'s software development where they gain free benefit from your tax money.
So maybe a new license for government funded software is needed what includes stipulations that combine the two style licenses. I'm not going to try to come up with one. That exercise is left to the reader.
Re:New style license needed? (Score:2)
Actually, this could be seen as a form of development help to poor countries, which doesn't cost anything extra. All the work has been done, and poor countries can benefit without averse effects to anybody. We share the wealth, without cost... what could be better?
This assumes ofcourse that the software would be developed anyway, and the licence is the issue.
Re:New style license needed? (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, Copyright does an amazing job of working in China
Re:New style license needed? (Score:2)
Re:New style license needed? (Score:2)
I do agree that a different kind of license may be in order. I don't see what the big deal is anyway, since they can make up any ole license they damn well feel like and don't need to restrict themselves to BSD vs GPL.
Re:New style license needed? (Score:2)
If there's a synergy between project A under the GPL and project B under an xwindows-style license, you can combine them and release the results under the GPL, but not under the BSD. But the more licenses you have, the greater the chance that project A has a license incompatible with project B's. And changing the license of either project can be a major headache. Look at the KDE story.
You could also make arguments around the fact that it's important for developers to understand their license options, but I think that's less important than the incompatibility argument.
So
1. Fewer licenses better
2. Right few licenses better still.
GPL and BSD(without-obnoxious-advertising-clause) seem to represent two distinct positions in open-source software. Then there are almost-open licenses and not-even-remotely-open licenses.
Maybe you could improve a bit on these choices, but would your improvement be worth the reduction in compatibility and dilution of understanding that it would subject the world to?
Re:New style license needed? (Score:2)
The point you're missing here is that, by using the BSD-licensed code in a closed-source project, *nothing is being taken away*. The company here is profiting from the changes they made to the code. Anyone who wants to can pick up the very same code the company started with.
If you think the changes the company made are worth something, you will pay for them. If you think they are worthless, you won't. If you can do better, you'll do so. Nothing is being taken away with BSD-licensed code.
Are they benefiting from tax-payer money? Yes, to some extent. But rich or poor, company or individual, (for that matter, US citizen or not) you are given the same access to the same code as anyone else. And the same opportunity to profit from changes made to the code (or even from distribution of the unmodified code, if packaged in a manner more convenient for those willing to pay).
In short, noone is making people pay these companies for having used the BSD code. People choose to because they like the changes the company made, or the packagine the company did, with the code. Completely legal, completely within the letter *and* spirit of the license agreement, and, in my opinion, completely fair.
Re:New style license needed? (Score:4, Insightful)
In the absence of any unkind thoughts, of course there's no problem with it.
However, in the real world, it is as simple as: Microsoft grabs the whole product, doctors it so it will only work with Microsoft stuff, and then leverages the popularity of the product to make their version first a competing implementation, then the preferred (mandated?) version, and finally the only one you can have, killing the original, open version.
It's as simple as that. There is every reason to support the underlying concept of the BSD license, but in practice you cannot remain blind to the possibility of abuses.
Granted, to abuse the BSD license, you basically have to be a trust or monopoly with a record of interfering with normal market operations in abusive ways for your own benefit. It also helps if you have a fairly long view.
But of course such a thing could never happen in the COMPUTER industry, and if it did, why, the government would stop them!
See where I'm going with this 'in practice, relying on the BSD license to produce greatest freedom for the greatest number is unsafe'?
GPL is the answer. Its restrictions are _specifically_ targeted at defeating such manipulations. Seeing as those guilty of this kind of stuff are still out there, unpunished and raring to do more, can you justify advocating the BSD license in the knowledge that that's what's gonna happen?
Re:New style license needed? (Score:2)
In the case of Microsoft using the BSD TCP/IP stack, at least, I can't see where this has happened. They utilized the BSD code, and integrated it with their closed-source product. I don't see any harm done from this. They haven't made the MS version of TCP/IP the One True Way -- my Windows boxes integrate with the rest of my network (Linux and FreeBSD) just fine.
I understand the concerns regarding Embrace and Extend, but at least in this case (the only one I know of where MS has taken open source code for their own benefit) there has been no harm done. If anything, it has made MS operating systems slightly more robust in network interoperability. Nowhere have they tried to make their own TCP/IP stack a new standard that breaks compatibility with other systems. MS might be big, but they aren't *that* big. They are in no position to dictate established standards that have been around since long before Billy and Paully decided to take over the world.
Back to the topic, I could see a potential for abuse, of course. However, people aren't that stupid. Joe sixpack doesn't care, sure, but there are enough of us who do to make sure something like that doesn't happen.
I'm as paranoid as anyone, probably moreso (or so people tell me when I rant about MS, RIAA, etc), but the GPL license, in my opinion, causes more problems than it solves.
I'm one who does not feel all source should be open. On the one hand, I contribute to OSS projects wherever I can, and I admin several Unix servers. On the other hand I write Windows-based shareware. I'm pretty much in the middle of all of it.
I think that code should be handled however the writer intended it to be handled. If licensed under the GPL, then you must either agree to the terms, or not use the code. Likewise for any license, be it GPL, BSD, or closed-source. If you don't agree, don't use my code (or binary or whatever).
The same goes for any license. If you don't agree to an EULA, for example, you have no right to use the software except under the terms provided by the author of said code. You can disagree all you want, and argue that "information wants to be free" and refer to other partial quotes, but the fact remains: if I (or whoever) write something, I only allow you to use it under my terms. Don't agree to the terms? Don't use what I wrote.
The BSD license is probably the most open license I can think of. If you want to use it, for any purpose, you can. You don't even have to say where you got the code anymore (with newer BSD licenses). The GPL, on the other hand, puts serious restrictions on how you can use the code. Modify the code and give it to someone? You have to give them your source code as well. I'm not one to advocate the FUD about viral licensing, etc, but I do feel that the restrictions are a bit too much for any for-profit company to accept. Why would a company invest many man-hours into something they have to GIVE away? To their competitors, and everyone else? You can argue all you want, but those who make the decisions are looking at the bottom line: investing in GPL code gives little return (assuming you aren't a company focused on such things specifically).
BSD licensed code allows anyone the same access to the code, regardless of what you plan to do with it. I feel that this is the most fair; you can profit from your own changes or method of distribution, or you can contribute back to the original authors. It's up to you. In any case, though, your use of the code takes nothing away from the original authors. Everyone else has the same access to the same code you started with. What more do you want?
As a consumer, you can choose not to purchase derrived code. You can likewise decide that a particular company's improvements are worth your hard-earned money. It's up to you. There is no forced. One might try to utilize monopoly power to force you to use their derrived code, but again, MS is not that big. Big, yes, but not THAT big. Trust me, if they could take out all other operating systems just like that, it would have already happened.
With government code, it is my belief that it should be fair. Fair as in, no matter who you are or what your motives are, you have the same access to the code to do what you want. Want to release the changes back to the original authors? Go right ahead. Want to take the existing code, make changes to it and make a profit from it? Please do. This is where a BSD-style license comes into play. Want to make something so compelling that everyone standardizes on YOUR version of the code? Well, it could happen. But MS (or anyone else) can't just do that without really contributing something worth-while... they'd have to make some serious improvements for that to happen. In which case, is this a bad thing?
I certainly understand the concerns about MS's habit of Embrace and Extend -- there is no doubt about this. But with GPL code, no for-profit company is going to use any code at all, and as a result, the only people who benefit are the few who do want to contribute their changes to the world for no return.
Most of the innovations we've had in the computing world were done by corporations.The same corporations who wouldn't touch GPL code for anything. Be it Intel, AMD, or whoever -- most of what we have in the computing world comes from for-profit organisations. Heck, the BSD TCP/IP stack and variations of it can be found in most any modern network-capable operating system. This would not be the case if the original code were released under a GPL-type license, I am sure.
Anyway, I seem to be rambling (damned holdiay... girlfriend is out of town, too much beer
Re:New style license needed? (Score:2)
Remember, current copyright law as enacted by the senate only applies to US citizens. Foreign nations only need to have similar laws if they elect to sign treaties with the US gov't.
And the only folks that we really wouldn't want sharing our BSD stuff is nations that we don't like, and we'd probably would have treaty enforcement problems with them anyway. The Taliban didn't have to worry about where they payed for Windows, no matter what license MS had offered.
The biggest problem... (Score:2)
Re:The biggest problem... (Score:2)
However if the governmet released, say, a program for filling in tax returns, it would be nice to have the source available so people and organizations could modify the program and still produce "standardized" data files. Such code would probably be best released under a BSD licence, and would be useless beyond the boundaries of my land because forigners have different tax laws.
Security issues (Score:2)
I guess this is similiar to other freedoms people have given up in this "post 9/11" world.
BSD-Like (Score:4, Insightful)
The public made it, the public should be able to do whatever the hell they want with it. That includes rolling it into a commercial, proprietary app, and it also includes rolling it into a GPLed app.
The government can't hold a copyright except in very limited situations. There's a reason for that.
Re:BSD-Like (Score:2)
Of course, copyright is not an international law. Taiwan, for example, could decide that they were not going to respect the copyrights of material not created physically in Taiwan. The only reason that copyrights are respected internationally at all is due to treaty.
So you could make the feds make everything proprietary, and all licensees must pay cash, or you could make the feds GPL everything, but the Taiwanese could still "leech". Because American law doesn't apply to them.
They probably wouldn't do that. But still, there's no enforcement other than by treaty. So I'm not positive that they need to be accounted for in this system.
What would you suggest? (And I don't see your analogy, but whatever.)
None of the above. (Score:3, Insightful)
First of all, I'd like to establish that US citizens should have a right to sourcecode that they essentially payed for. They should be granted BSD-style rights to use the code in any way they see fit. BUT, they should not be allowed to give the sourcecode to foreign nationals or other governments. They, after all, did not pay for the code which we payed to develop, so they should not be able to have the same rights as we enjoy. However, it would be perfectly acceptable for any citizen (or corporation-citizen) to sell a derivative in binary form, as it is to their financial benefit.
Secondly, of course, one would have to make exceptions for code that would have to remain classified, as it would obviously be stupid to release it. National security and open source are basically at odds.
Remember, government was invented advance the interests of its people, and its people alone.
Re:None of the above. (Score:3, Insightful)
If the code is a matter of national security, why are they releasing the binaries to third parties? If someone else has the binaries, they can crack it to figure out how it works, so any national secrets being stored in the binary are now open.
If the binaries are not being distributed, the source need not be distributed either. Why is this a problem for people to understand?
Non-US-citizen but US tax payer (Score:5, Insightful)
Therefore, any licence restrictions based on contribution to the federal coffers should allow me, even as a tax-paying "foreign national" the same right as a tax-paying US citizen.
Foreign aid? (Score:2, Troll)
Furthermore, I don't really see why you would want to keep the software out of the hands of other citizens/nations. Will it somehow be bad for the US if other countries' governments will be more efficient? It seems to me that a lack of democracy is one of the major reasons that terrorism has a foothold in the islamitic world. Free and open software that incorporates democratic principles may have a positive effect in this respect. Furthermore, having people from all over the world working together may also contribute to mutual understanding and positive PR for the US.
I voted Yes but.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyone knows if there is any cases in the pipeline?
There is a range of what should be allowed (Score:5, Interesting)
Obviously, if you are going to start banning licenses then the first class of licenses to go is proprietary. Once a government has banned proprietary code then it makes sense to consider banning GPL code. I think a government has a responseability to use open formats and standards. But beyond that, they should just use whatever makes sense on a case by case basis.
Re:There is a range of what should be allowed (Score:3, Insightful)
This discussion is silly... (Score:2)
Because it would annoy Microsoft? That's stupid.
GPL software benifits society. Since all the file formats are open to all, even proprietary vendors can benifit and interoperate with them. The source for GPL software is going to be available dispite any economic eventualities so using GPL software makes sense in the long term.
For many things GPL software is the highest quality available.
Re:This discussion is silly... (Score:2)
Of course, this annyoys the hell out of MS, so they get picky about it. Congrats, Open Source, they are RUNNING for their money.
Re:This discussion is silly... (Score:2)
Re:This discussion is silly... (Score:2)
Corporations should not be allowed to profit... (Score:2)
To paraphrase Homer Simpson, "Some day honest citizens are going to stand up to you crooked corporations"
"Th-they are? Oh-no! Have they, have they set a date?"
Re:Corporations should not be allowed to profit... (Score:5, Interesting)
Question: should a for-profit transportation company be able to use the government funded highway system?
The problem with that attitude is that, by virtue of the fact that corporations are legally equivalent (for all except voting rights) to people, they are part of the public and pay taxes (granted, whether or not the tax code is structured in such a way as to actually cause them to pay the taxes is a separate issue).
Re:Corporations should not be allowed to profit... (Score:3, Flamebait)
That's a closer analogy.
Re:Corporations should not be allowed to profit... (Score:2)
We're not talking about taking government-funded code and giving a corporation the exclusive right to use and thereby charge for it. We are talking about a corporation taking government-funded code which the public at large has access to, and using it to roll their own product with more functionality.
A more adequate analogy would be a corporation taking the plans for the government highway system, and adding their own plans for flying cars to make an air-way system if I may coin a term. Should some corporation do this it is perfectly reasponable for them to charge a fee for using it.
No GPL (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No GPL (Score:2)
Isn't proprietary by definition closed source? So if you don't like closed-source licenses, and the only thing that the GPL prevents is closed source licenses, then you really do like the GPL license? Right?
-BrentYes, but... (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, However.... (Score:3, Informative)
Works produced by US government contractors, on the other hand, have often been governed by contract provisions which allow the contractor to retain all rights except for a non-exclusive license to the US government.
The real issue (Score:2)
Sure. But I'm beginning to have second thoughts. If you think about it, it becomes clear that Microsoft's primary reason in attacking the GPL is to attack Linux. They couldn't care less if they aren't allowed to use chunks of government code in their own products -- they have all the programming man power they'd ever need in-house. Just take a look at the way they decimated SELinux. They effectively forced the government to make a press release detailing the end of SELinux because of Microsoft's GPL "licensing issues" FUD.
Whether it's FreeBSD, Darwin or Hurd you love, it's difficult to deny that the greatest competitor to Windows on the desktop right now is Linux. And by voting for the "BSD, not GPL" option, you're indirectly backing up the FUD that will prevent Linux's adoption in government. Make sure you think twice about this.
Getting Warmer (Score:2, Informative)
BSD and possible corruption. (Score:5, Interesting)
Suppose that a hypothetical company, say MiniSoft (hereafter referred to as MS), needs to spend R&D money on a network protocol implementation or something else. Suppose that the company is big enough as to have a considerable influence in the Government of their country. You would probably see public (tax) money go to a project on this network protocol implementation (or whatever the company needs), the code would be released under a BSD license and MS would steal, I mean make use of the code right away in a closed source product. This situation could be avoided with the use of a GPL-like license.
Re:BSD and possible corruption. (Score:2)
Already done in other areas (Score:2)
depends on the purpose (Score:2)
Whatever license (Score:2)
Classified Information (Score:3, Insightful)
Some government agencies deal either with classified information, or Sensitive But Unclassified information. Let's say they take a GPL program and extend it using proprietary government standards, with security in mind. Then they have to release these back to the community? I don't think so.
I'm not saying "this program uses SSL" but "this program uses classified data formats" or "this program interfaces with a classified satellite network" etc. Releasing such code back to the community would allow malicious crackers a better chance at cracking a system. Security through obscurity does not work, however, sometimes you need to keep your mouth shut and not blab all the inner details of your system. This is the reason I voted for "BSD license."
More importantly, I think the government should use more off the shelf GPL/BSD style software. The Department of Defense, for example, mandates the use of Microsoft software whenever possible. The only time it is permissible not to use Microsoft software is when they don't have a product that meets the need. This follows close on the heels of news that Microsoft writes buggy software and is at the bottom of the DOD's list in terms of security and reliability. As much as XFree86, Gnome and KDE have their problems, I find them much more stable and user friendly than Windows. Not to mention cheaper.
I think more than a few people in the Pentagon own Microsoft stock...
Re:Classified Information (Score:2)
Check out your GPL: you can make all the changes you want for Internal Use as long as you don't try to sell (or otherwise distribute) the software to anybody else. So if your Missle Launch software uses modified ntpd (assuming this ntpd is GPL) code, you don't have to give away any changes, unless the Government tries to sell it to Israel, in which case Israel would have the right to request, via mail, a copy of the source code on media and could give it away to anybody they wanted.
This is, of course, assuming the Government doesn't have any special licensing laws, which I think they do... I've seen "U.S. GOVERNMENT END USERS. The Software is a "commercial item," as that term is defined in 48 C.F.R. 2.101 (Oct. 1995), consisting of "commercial computer software" and "commercial computer software documentation," as such terms are used in 48 C.F.R. 12.212 (Sept. 1995). Consistent with 48 C.F.R. 12.212 and 48 C.F.R. 227.7202-1 through 227.7202-4 (June 1995), all U.S. Government End Users acquire the Software with only those rights set forth herein." but I don't know what 48 CFR 12.212 entails. Can anybody help?
Four letters (Score:2)
The BSD license sucks. (Score:2)
If BSD-licenses would have had a mechanism stopping this Microsoft would hate it because it wouldnt let them use their monopoly. I dont have eny problems with MS using free code but if they pollute it all the free work people have put in is just thrown at Microsoft for free without benefit for the taxpayers.
I know why MS likes BSD, do you?
Meanwhile in Brazil (Score:2)
Here in Brazil must preferably use FreeSoftware. Of course that this is just an indication, but it is just the first step.
Many City halls aroun the country is adopting Free Software as its only development plataform. I hope that this shows the path for other countries around the world.
Modified GPL: Tighter export control (Score:2)
Obviously this solution is incompatable with the current view of open source, and is not intended for general use, but could help the issue of code developed through government funding.
On another note, a good argument against closed-source of any sort through government funding is to take a look at math. Say the government gives a university a bunch of money to be used on encryption research. Now, there are export laws on encryption in many countries, but let's say that while doing their studies they discover a method of factoring huge numbers rather quickly. How is that intended to be used by the taxpayers without 'the source'? Are they going to just tell people that yes, they have discovered a way of factoring huge numbers, but they'll just have to take their word for it? Could that sort of discovery be kept from foreign countries? Essentially we're giving foreign countries the taxpayer money of the local country by disclosing the results of our research, but would you ever expect any different of math? Why would you expect different of programs for a computer, then?
GPL reduces fragmentation (Score:4, Insightful)
GPL reduces the likelihood of fragmentation because it ensures that different descendents of a given piece of code can always be reintegrated, technical issues aside. Money can be an incentive to fork BSD licensed code, because the BSD allows companies to embrace and extend software, and make it their own. Of course, money is a strong motivator for companies, so there's a real risk of this happening.
The GPL prevents money from becoming an incentive for forking, though forking can still occur for other reasons, like when people disagree about the direction of development. See the Linux forks known as the ac tree, the dj tree, etc. And note that pieces of the kernel developers' trees are constantly being reintegrated into the Linus tree. It's healthy forking.
If a government releases software, then people should *use* that software, or at least its heir-apparent. They shouldn't have to buy licenses for three descendants of that software, just because each descendant has one killer feature.
Missing option (Score:5, Funny)
The gov't is not a business - no reason to reject (Score:3, Insightful)
The government doesn't have these kinds of problems. It's not competing with other governments inside the US for market dominance. There are different parties, to be sure, but if the tech infrastructure of the government changed every time the political majority did it wouldn't be very stable. The fact is, the more access other governments have to high-quality OSS software, the better off everyone is.
U.S. government cannot claim copyright protection (Score:5, Interesting)
argument doesn't apply to a lot of software (Score:3, Interesting)
The gov't issues GPLs? (Score:2)
It's quite simple, but the poll is ambiguous. (Score:4, Interesting)
2.) Software written under contract for the government can be under any license the contractor decides upon. Of course, the government can always refuse to accept a contract unless the software be released under an open license. In this case, it is a matter of negotiation as to which one. BSD and GPL each have their selling points and not just on the fine points of philosophy. (Although as someone who believes there should be absolutely no proprietary software, I would always vote for GPL..)
Unfortunately, this pole is unclear when it says "an appropriate Govt' license" In case 1, there is no license because the software is public domain anyways. In case 2, any license may be deemed appropriate whether open or proprietary--the way it has always been.
So a better poll would be: "Should the government force all contractors to use Open Source licenses" Yes / No
My vote is Yes. If my tax dollars go to write software, I want to see it. And for national security, the source code NEEDs to be public.
Are we talking about USING or DEVELOPING GPL? (Score:3, Insightful)
What is wrong with government using Linux and and all the wealth of GNU and GPL software to replace desktops, for example?
If GPL is bad for use, then proprietary is worse. Hence, governments should throw out all Microsoft products.
In other words, governments can't take Microsoft code and enhance it for their own use, nor should they take GPL code and enhance it for their own use (and not distribute changes).
So, Microsoft's viral FUD is just silly and nonsensical when you think about it.
no one license fits all (Score:4, Insightful)
The rules for the government are similar to the rules for everything else: think about what you are trying to accomplish with the license and license accordingly. The only principle for the government is that the government should probably not derive revenue from the sale of software (but Republicans would dispute even that).
So, what does that mean?
Re:Good Because: (Score:2)
That's an outright lie. Businesses pay taxes just like everyone else.
Re:Good Because: (Score:2, Funny)
Businesses should be set to make an overall profit of 0, and thus be exempt from paying any tax...
That's what happens in NZ anyway...
Re:Good Because: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not necessarily, if they're multinational and adept at the ancient art of Creative Bookkeeping. Here in Denmark, the Coca-Cola Corporation, McDonalds, Nestle and several other multinationals haven't paid a krone of tax for years. They simply adjust their transfer pricing for imported goods from their departments in other countries, to make their Danish net profit per year equal zero. No profit == no tax. All the profit they really make (please do NOT insult my intelligence by telling me Coca-Cola and McDonalds aren't profitable businesses) is channeled to the same companies' departments in countries with low or no tax using artificial transfer pricing. I strongly doubt that Denmark is the only country in which they are running scams like this.
Sources (in Danish, unfortunately -- I was unable to find English-language sources on the subject):
So, in my humble opinion, governments should judge things like licensing of publicly produced software on grounds of the common good of all its citizens, and hence use licenses that prevent corporate types from hijacking it from the public sector to make a buck. They will try to, their interest in the public good only goes as far as the publicity it will buy. Given that the people involved in these corporations are citizens of the country adopting a non-proprietary software policy, they should of course have the same rights to use, modify and distribute the software as anyone else, but to make sure they truly are on equal grounds with other citizens, they should not be allowed to make easy profits out of what the public has created. They can create their own competing software if they want to make money on it.
Business != BIG Business (Score:2)
Re:Public Domain (Score:4, Interesting)
Last year, neither GE nor Microsoft (nor a bunch of other companies) payed taxes. They were taxed.... $0. Nothing. Nada.
While I do not disagree with your conclusion (that gov't sponsored software should be public domain, and not restricted by licenses at all), I disagree with the logic used to get there.
Corporations get the benefit, but pay none of the burden. The top 10% wage earners may pay 30% of the taxes in the US, but they make 50% of the money. Face it, we're getting screwed both by rich corporations and rich individuals running the corporations.