Comment They just don't get it. (Score 1) 85
TL;DR: Government shouldn't and doesn't really worry about open source. It is a cash cow for them, but they don't understand it.
I find it funny that the former NSA guy is nervous about the Linux kernel, while NSA itself were major contributors under MDA904-01-C-0926. Their contributions brought about enhancements to Security Enhanced Linux (SELinux) as well as some very helpful guidelines in how to lock down Linux and other server operating systems. Did they try to backdoor Linux? Of course they did, and given the scrutiny you would expect from the open source community when dealing with such a code contributor, of course these direct attempts failed at various points. Apparently DARPA had a similar program (N66001-00-C-8032).
DoD, and more specifically DARPA have had a checkered past when it comes to open source anything, particularly hardware. It doesn't fit their mindset or well worn procurement processes, though some individuals within DARPA "get it". They tried the shot-in-the-arm and competition approaches, and these worked well particularly for aerospace hardware. Over the years, lots of cool stuff was produced and bucket of research done, but...
In at least in one particular case I am aware of (http://issyroo.org/?page_id=149), a subcontracting research organization who produced what they were supposed to, was threatened with Export Control violations during the project documentation public release. This prevented them from sharing the research openly as the contract with DARPA clearly allowed open source hardware with the usual community collaboration. Disclosure: I was the primary researcher on this project and am a founding member of the Open Source Hardware Association. I think you can see why I would be a little salty about the way that cookie crumbled.
If this was a pattern (it was), and since most makerspaces or private shops don't have the money to litigate, it is reasonable to assume that DARPA has walked off with a lot of research for pennies on the Dollar, while getting at least part of the exclusivity they wanted in violation of open source principles. If they follow the model of SBIR/STTR research, and it looks like they did, the small research labs get handed a little cash for the high risk primary research, then their IP is handed off to preferred contractors for development into a product, which is where the real money is.
I find it funny that the former NSA guy is nervous about the Linux kernel, while NSA itself were major contributors under MDA904-01-C-0926. Their contributions brought about enhancements to Security Enhanced Linux (SELinux) as well as some very helpful guidelines in how to lock down Linux and other server operating systems. Did they try to backdoor Linux? Of course they did, and given the scrutiny you would expect from the open source community when dealing with such a code contributor, of course these direct attempts failed at various points. Apparently DARPA had a similar program (N66001-00-C-8032).
DoD, and more specifically DARPA have had a checkered past when it comes to open source anything, particularly hardware. It doesn't fit their mindset or well worn procurement processes, though some individuals within DARPA "get it". They tried the shot-in-the-arm and competition approaches, and these worked well particularly for aerospace hardware. Over the years, lots of cool stuff was produced and bucket of research done, but...
In at least in one particular case I am aware of (http://issyroo.org/?page_id=149), a subcontracting research organization who produced what they were supposed to, was threatened with Export Control violations during the project documentation public release. This prevented them from sharing the research openly as the contract with DARPA clearly allowed open source hardware with the usual community collaboration. Disclosure: I was the primary researcher on this project and am a founding member of the Open Source Hardware Association. I think you can see why I would be a little salty about the way that cookie crumbled.
If this was a pattern (it was), and since most makerspaces or private shops don't have the money to litigate, it is reasonable to assume that DARPA has walked off with a lot of research for pennies on the Dollar, while getting at least part of the exclusivity they wanted in violation of open source principles. If they follow the model of SBIR/STTR research, and it looks like they did, the small research labs get handed a little cash for the high risk primary research, then their IP is handed off to preferred contractors for development into a product, which is where the real money is.
