Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements page
| |||||||||||||
New DoD memo on Open Source Software (David Wheeler's Blog)
David Wheeler
investigates a new
clarifying statement [PDF]
for an old Department of Defense policy on the use of
open-source software.
"This 2009 memo is important for anyone who works with the DoD (including contractors) on software and systems that include software... and I suspect it will influence many other organizations as well. Let me explain why this new memo exists, and what it says.
Back in 2003 the DoD released a formal memo titled Open Source Software (OSS) in the Department of Defense. This older memo was supposed to make it clear that it was fine to use and develop OSS in the DoD. Unfortunately, as the new 2009 memo states, "there have been misconceptions and misinterpretations of the existing laws, policies and regulations that deal with software and apply to OSS that have hampered effective DoD use and development of OSS"."
(Log in to post comments)
New DoD memo on Open Source Software (David Wheeler's Blog) Posted Oct 27, 2009 22:23 UTC (Tue) by kragil (guest, #34373) [Link]
OK a lot of people will not like this comment, but it is just the way I see it.
Not everything that advances FOSS is great. The major objective the US military has had the last years was the exploitation of people (and that involved killing a lot of people, American and International) .. not something I would want to contribute to in any way. I would want them to use non working proprietary software if that hinders them from archiving that objective.
And for the record(not that it matters): I served in the military (forward observer for M109, not US though) .. I just don't see any real justification for it anymore (the money spend, the lifes lost etc.)
New DoD memo on Open Source Software (David Wheeler's Blog) Posted Oct 27, 2009 22:29 UTC (Tue) by pheldens (guest, #19366) [Link]
I agree, and besides, the base ideas are unmergable anyway.
New DoD memo on Open Source Software (David Wheeler's Blog) Posted Oct 27, 2009 22:47 UTC (Tue) by endecotp (guest, #36428) [Link]
Yes; I would love to use a license that disallowed the use of my code in killing machines.
New DoD memo on Open Source Software (David Wheeler's Blog) Posted Oct 27, 2009 22:56 UTC (Tue) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523) [Link]
My view is that people above the law will not care about copyright law and your license anyway.
New DoD memo on Open Source Software (David Wheeler's Blog) Posted Oct 27, 2009 23:12 UTC (Tue) by endecotp (guest, #36428) [Link]
But I'm not talking about people who are "above the law". This is the U.S. D.o.D.
New DoD memo on Open Source Software (David Wheeler's Blog) Posted Oct 27, 2009 23:28 UTC (Tue) by juhl (subscriber, #33245) [Link]
"But I'm not talking about people who are "above the law". This is the U.S. D.o.D."
So you are very much talking about people who are "above the law".
New DoD memo on Open Source Software (David Wheeler's Blog) Posted Oct 28, 2009 0:33 UTC (Wed) by zlynx (subscriber, #2285) [Link]
The military - anyone's military - and the police forces are the very best examples of "violence solves problems."
Also, I object to describing military officers as "crazy people." They are not. Go get to know some.
New DoD memo on Open Source Software (David Wheeler's Blog) Posted Oct 28, 2009 11:23 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Commanding officers certainly aren't crazy people. They have all the problems of people in command positions far from the ground floor, but they're not crazy. (I'm not sure they ever have been at any time in history. Even in WWI they were merely totally out of touch and implementing appallingly bad strategy, not crazy.)
New DoD memo on Open Source Software (David Wheeler's Blog) Posted Oct 27, 2009 23:07 UTC (Tue) by ntl (subscriber, #40518) [Link] Such a license would not be Open Source or DFSG-compliant, as it would discriminate against a field of endeavor.
New DoD memo on Open Source Software (David Wheeler's Blog) Posted Oct 27, 2009 23:15 UTC (Tue) by endecotp (guest, #36428) [Link]
> Such a license would not be Open Source
Exactly. To me, not killing people and free software are both important, but the former is more important than the latter. The people who defined "open source" to include the "no discrimination against a field of endeavour" bit presumably consider the priorities reversed.
New DoD memo on Open Source Software (David Wheeler's Blog) Posted Oct 28, 2009 1:17 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] Person who defined, not people. A person named Bruce Perens.I was going mainly by the University of California's previous history with the Berkeley SPICE license. This license prohibited use by the Police of South Africa. But many years had gone by since Apartheid, and the license still prohibited the now-Black police from using the software. Not that they ever wanted to. I suppose you could make a license prohibiting use in a weapon. But your software isn't going to be used in one anyway. Beyond that, you have vehicles, heads-up-displays, etc., which have both peaceful and belicose purposes. So, you will probably end up restricting what you do not wish to restrict. The FSF's call on this is that you should not restrict use at all. And RMS says he might be against one war or another, but he is not in general a pacifist. I guess that goes for me too.
New DoD memo on Open Source Software (David Wheeler's Blog) Posted Oct 28, 2009 3:44 UTC (Wed) by donbarry (guest, #10485) [Link]
RMS named that some years before you did Bruce, in his Freedom Zero.
Your retelling did take things in somewhat different directions, emphasizing pragmatics over principle. We disagree over those divergent courses but it is a disagreement that two may reasonably have. But primacy of the concept of agnostic use-specific restrictions in software can easily be verified to be RMS' contribution.
New DoD memo on Open Source Software (David Wheeler's Blog) Posted Oct 28, 2009 5:17 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] RMS' four freedoms had been published in print at that time, in one of the very earliest "GNUs Bulletin" distributed at MIT. Possibly a few copies still existed. They were so unknown at the time that nobody in the month-long discussion in which we formed the DFSG thought to bring them up. I didn't know the four freedoms document existed, and when I showed RMS the DFSG, he didn't point it out to me. We did, however, have the text of the GPL to work from.Sometime later, RMS dredged the four freedoms up as a counter to Open Source and republished them.
New DoD memo on Open Source Software (David Wheeler's Blog) Posted Oct 28, 2009 5:53 UTC (Wed) by jordanb (guest, #45668) [Link]
Well I'm sure glad that's cleared up.
We'll have to make sure the Nobel committee is aware of your contributions so they can award Stallman's prize jointly to you.
New DoD memo on Open Source Software (David Wheeler's Blog) Posted Oct 28, 2009 15:03 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]
And I'll tell teacher to give you a gold star for spelling. Too bad about the "plays with others" part.
New DoD memo on Open Source Software (David Wheeler's Blog) Posted Oct 28, 2009 21:34 UTC (Wed) by donbarry (guest, #10485) [Link]
That's actually rather interesting, but perhaps not for the reasons
you point out. I recall discovering the GPL and Stallman's discussions of its rationales in the 1980s with delight and astonishment at its vision. I too disagreed with the lack of use restrictions at first read, until I realized the necessity for a larger vision. It was a transformative discovery. If you did not know of Stallman's work at that level, then it would appear a certain amount of due diligence was missing. He's the foundational author in the field.
New DoD memo on Open Source Software (David Wheeler's Blog) Posted Oct 28, 2009 22:48 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] I didn't just know of Richard's work, I was corresponding with him routinely at the time. I was really clear on what the purpose of FSF and GNU was, and had been so for years. I was one of the leading people in the field of Free Software at that particular moment. I knew enough to construct a good definition of Free Software, which we're still using. And I had never seen a statement of the Four Freedoms.I really, really, think that FSF was not promoting that particular document at that point in time. I have no other logical explanation that fits the facts. I think Richard recovered the Four Freedoms and started talking about them more as a counter to the OSD.
New DoD memo on Open Source Software (David Wheeler's Blog) Posted Oct 27, 2009 22:57 UTC (Tue) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
Yes... Because we all want Microsoft software to be the stuff used as the
control system on a nuclear powered ship.
New DoD memo on Open Source Software (David Wheeler's Blog) Posted Oct 27, 2009 23:00 UTC (Tue) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] Now that would be against the Windows EULA.
New DoD memo on Open Source Software (David Wheeler's Blog) Posted Oct 28, 2009 9:35 UTC (Wed) by zmower (subscriber, #3005) [Link]
New DoD memo on Open Source Software (David Wheeler's Blog) Posted Oct 27, 2009 23:04 UTC (Tue) by jordanb (guest, #45668) [Link]
It's worth observing that the DoD has long been a large source of funding and support for technological advances -- particularly those in the computer industry. This includes computers themselves, microprocessors, and the internet. They also supported the AI lab where RMS got his start.
So while I agree with your sentiment, it's worth keeping in mind that if you have a morally ambivalent potential ally, binary logic may not be appropriate in dealing with them. Even if you're in disagreement with their ultimate goal, a temporary alliance may still put you in a much better position. This is as true if the potential ally is the DoD as if it is IBM or Google.
New DoD memo on Open Source Software (David Wheeler's Blog) Posted Oct 27, 2009 23:37 UTC (Tue) by kragil (guest, #34373) [Link]
Agreed, it really is hard to draw the line. And it always will be open for interpretation I guess.
I would go with something like Asimovs robot rules or that machines that have a direct involvement in the killing. So Linux powered supercomputers for A-bomb simulation are tolerable, but but everything weaponized like robots, drones, rockets, bombs etc is not.
New DoD memo on Open Source Software (David Wheeler's Blog) Posted Oct 28, 2009 11:42 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
But Asimov's laws of robotics don't work. Every single short story he ever wrote about them was playing off that fact.
Also, if you can come up with something that can interpret rules as fuzzy as these must be that well, well, it'll be a strong AI, and we have a name for a killing machine with a strong AI on board. We call it a 'soldier' and probably have to pay it.
New DoD memo on Open Source Software (David Wheeler's Blog) Posted Oct 28, 2009 22:56 UTC (Wed) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]
Asimov wrote stories where they give the robots strong AI, and those all end in a way that I'm guessing would be objectionable to all the "don't use my software in military applications" pacifists.
One in particular features robots which have been given strong AI and "fuzzy" laws as suggested, they are free to interpret the laws so that e.g. they don't obey the orders of an idiot, it seems initially that this has been very successful, but the reader (though not the humans in the story) discovers that actually these robots have re-assessed the provided definition of "human" and decided that in fact /they/ are most human, and therefore most deserving of protection from danger, such as the danger of being dismantled if they are discovered. It is clear that something very bad is likely to happen, but the story ends.
If someone's opposed to a war, or to all wars, that's a political issue that should be influencing your choice of government, not where you buy beans or what software license you choose. Muddling such different things together is how you end up with audiences trying to change the plotline of a TV show by boycotting products from a company that advertises on the TV network that distributes the show.
New DoD memo on Open Source Software (David Wheeler's Blog) Posted Oct 29, 2009 8:54 UTC (Thu) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183) [Link]
> Asimov wrote stories where they give the robots strong AI, and those all end in a way that I'm guessing would be objectionable to all the "don't use my software in military applications" pacifists.
> One in particular features robots which have been given strong AI and "fuzzy" laws as suggested, they are free to interpret the laws so that e.g. they don't obey the orders of an idiot, it seems initially that this has been very successful, but the reader (though not the humans in the story) discovers that actually these robots have re-assessed the provided definition of "human" and decided that in fact /they/ are most human, and therefore most deserving of protection from danger, such as the danger of being dismantled if they are discovered. It is clear that something very bad is likely to happen, but the story ends.
For what it's worth, that particular story was about the laws of robotics being weakened in a particular line of robots, and what happened next. It wasn't suggesting that the laws of robotics as they stood would have had that outcome.
Three Laws Posted Oct 30, 2009 17:17 UTC (Fri) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]
The story I was thinking of, "... That Thou Art Mindful of Him" does not involve weakening the laws at all. You might be thinking of "Little Lost Robot" in which a robot with a dangerously incomplete Law One is hiding among otherwise identical robots.
In "That Thou Art Mindful" the robots are given more powerful abilities to make decisions based on the laws in order to be suitable for use on Earth, where they could encounter complicated scenarios with conflicting orders, simultaneous dangers and so on. So rather than being "hard coded" with a description of what makes something human, they're taught about this separately. This is to allow them to develop judgements about whether particular individuals are "fit" to order them about, and if humans give conflicting orders, which to obey.
The result is: "By the Three Laws, the human-beings-like-the-others are of lesser account and can neither be obeyed nor protected when that conflicts with the need of obedience to those like ourselves and of protection of those like ourselves". The story ends shortly after - having established the threat there is no need to describe the violent consequences.
Three Laws Posted Oct 30, 2009 17:31 UTC (Fri) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183) [Link]
> The story I was thinking of, "... That Thou Art Mindful of Him" does not involve weakening the laws at all. You might be thinking of "Little Lost Robot" in which a robot with a dangerously incomplete Law One is hiding among otherwise identical robots.
It has been a long time since I read any Dr A. (Maybe even since his death.) I seemed to recall that the point of that story was that to counter scepticism about the laws of robotics, they were twisted (well in fact the robot's definition of a human being was, but in the end it amounted to the same) to try to make them please everyone, with unforeseen consequences.
New DoD memo on Open Source Software (David Wheeler's Blog) Posted Oct 27, 2009 23:06 UTC (Tue) by brinkmd (subscriber, #45122) [Link]
I understand where you are coming from, and I support your ideals. However, in understanding the US military complex one can not ignore the role it has for the US economy since WWII. It is the major factor in supporting and stabilizing the high tech industry, and in turning tax dollars into company dollars. Basically, since the black friday experience every policy maker understood that the "free market" does not function without a huge public sector pumping money into it, and that role is served by the US military in the US. Other countries have other infrastructure in place, for example through the ministry of commerce rather than defense.
So, if you are in the high tech sector in the US, ignoring the DoD is hard because it is the DoD that is used to pump public money into your market. Those projects are only superficially related to the actual goals of the US military.
Blowing people up Posted Oct 27, 2009 23:51 UTC (Tue) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] For example: the US Air Force, through its program AFNOR, supported development of the GPL library VSIPL++, which make it easy to write efficient, automatically-parallelizing array, signal, and image processing programs. That scratches the USAF's itch because it makes programming air-to-air missiles enormously cheaper.(*) It is equally useful for programming your local medical group's ultrasound and nuclear magnetic resonance imaging systems, and for finite element modeling of the struts in your car. I don't much like the USAF spending my tax money on gadgets designed to blow up airplanes, but I liked having my heart imaged.(*) How much cheaper? Every five years, the AF strips all the electronics off each of its active missile designs and redesigns it all anew using current components. Traditionally they reprogrammed each from scratch in assembly language, for a different microprocessor in a different custom design, so none of the old code could be used except for reference. They're probably doing that as we speak, but they're using VSIPL++ this time, so when they upgrade to a 64-way ARM with 64 GPUs in 2013, the source code comes across with only some parameters changed. They're going to do the work anyway, but this way they spend less of our money doing it, and we get to use the non-shooting part of the code ourselves. The way to get the US military to stop blowing people up is to help get people into office less eager to send them off to do that. The soldiers are just as happy blowing up target drones.
Blowing people up Posted Oct 28, 2009 0:26 UTC (Wed) by stumbles (guest, #8796) [Link] Finally someone speaking with some sense. Thanks.
Blowing people up Posted Oct 28, 2009 9:10 UTC (Wed) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183) [Link]
>The way to get the US military to stop blowing people up is to help get people into office less eager to send them off to do that.
Except that I suspect that the system is often stronger than the individuals (even presidents and suchlike), and that even the many people in office who don't like blowing people up can only do so much about it. That, and that you get hardened in the wrong way after a while in that sort of environment.
Blowing people up Posted Oct 28, 2009 11:35 UTC (Wed) by brinkmd (subscriber, #45122) [Link]
Yes, but imagine how much more useful the money would be if the projects were designed to serve primarily civil goals only and not military or dual-use goals. Still, the reality is that the US is doing it that way, and it is hard to ignore. My example would be that MIT receives a lot of funding from the DoD, but it also employs Noam Chomsky. It's a crazy world.
New DoD memo on Open Source Software (David Wheeler's Blog) Posted Oct 28, 2009 16:14 UTC (Wed) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link] Basically, since the black friday experience every policy maker understood that the "free market" does not function without a huge public sector pumping money into it, and that role is served by the US military in the US. Other countries have other infrastructure in place, for example through the ministry of commerce rather than defense.Your conclusions portrayed as facts are... not facts. Free markets are only free markets when they are not meddled with. When in US history would there ever have been a time when there was anything even close to a free market to even observe to come to such (obviously agenda based) conclusions? If you have an answer to that question other than "never", you obviously are overloading the term "free market" to mean something other than free.
New DoD memo on Open Source Software (David Wheeler's Blog) Posted Oct 27, 2009 23:12 UTC (Tue) by yokem_55 (subscriber, #10498) [Link]
Unfortunately adding license restrictions to software to prevent people from using that software toward ends that you disagree with interferes with software freedom 0: The freedom to run the program, for any purpose. Thankfully, because of this same freedom, the free software ecosystem has created a world in which there are many, many opportunities to express one's opinions about different institutions, and allows people to better coordinate their efforts to change or eliminate those institutions.
New DoD memo on Open Source Software (David Wheeler's Blog) Posted Oct 28, 2009 9:15 UTC (Wed) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183) [Link]
> Unfortunately adding license restrictions to software to prevent people from using that software toward ends that you disagree with interferes with software freedom 0: The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.
And is that freedom worth killing for? For me, some freedoms are more important than others, and software freedom 0 is not the first in my pecking order.
> Thankfully, because of this same freedom, the free software ecosystem has created a world in which there are many, many opportunities to express one's opinions about different institutions, and allows people to better coordinate their efforts to change or eliminate those institutions.
Some freedoms are more important Posted Oct 28, 2009 23:15 UTC (Wed) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]
And is that freedom worth killing for? For me, some freedoms are more important than others, and software freedom 0 is not the first in my pecking order.
Software licenses control software distribution, they don't authorise killing, that would be a criminal matter.
You are not allowed to have a Free Software license which says the software isn't for use by the US military, and I'm not allowed to have one that says it isn't for use by "homeopaths" and other quacks, and my vegan friend isn't allowed to add a restriction that it's not for meat eaters, and his union friend can't insist we ban companies that import foreign labour, and /his/ fascist friend can't add a clause which says "Whites only".
You're right, we need priorities, but the priorities don't have to be enumerated in a software license. In fact, the idea that they should be is an example of having your priorities mixed up.
Some freedoms are more important Posted Oct 29, 2009 8:42 UTC (Thu) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183) [Link]
I wouldn't want a licence clause that says that a particular group of people can't use software, but if I had the option I would definitely go for one which says in a reasonably legal-proof language that the code can't be used inside of weapons (real ones that is, not makeshift). And the fact that this goes against freedom zero would not bother me. Nor the fact that weapons are sometimes used for purposes I can support, as (far) more often than not they are used for purposes I can't.
Of course, there is a massive practical obstacle to such a free software licence - GPL compatibility. I suppose the only realistic way around this would be to try to persuade the GNU people to write an optional exception in this direction for those that want it (the GNU people would probably get the text right, too) and then work on GPL copyright holders to apply that as an "at your option".
Some freedoms are more important Posted Oct 29, 2009 17:53 UTC (Thu) by jimparis (subscriber, #38647) [Link]
> I wouldn't want a licence clause that says that a particular group of
> people can't use software, but if I had the option I would definitely go > for one which says in a reasonably legal-proof language that the code > can't be used inside of weapons
I'd be honored if my code was included in a guided nuclear weapon that was used to divert an asteroid about to hit Earth. If you wrote image-processing software that could save the world, it would be quite unfortunate if some legalese in the license prevented us from using it.
Our inability to predict the future and know the long-term effects of such arbitrary restrictions is one of the reasons why freedom is important.
New DoD memo on Open Source Software (David Wheeler's Blog) Posted Oct 27, 2009 23:30 UTC (Tue) by wingo (subscriber, #26929) [Link]
I agree with you, FWIW.
New DoD memo on Open Source Software (David Wheeler's Blog) Posted Oct 27, 2009 23:47 UTC (Tue) by cpeterso (guest, #305) [Link]
I am a pacifist, but since the military *will* fight wars with software, I would prefer they use open-source software.
Non-buggy software will reduce collateral damage on both sides of the conflict (e.g. smart bombs vs. big bombs). The DoD's huge budget and experience can improve non-military applications of open-source software.
And (wishful thinking) if the DoD can save money using open-source software, perhaps the federal budget can reallocate that money to more fruitful activities.
New DoD memo on Open Source Software (David Wheeler's Blog) Posted Oct 28, 2009 0:22 UTC (Wed) by brianomahoney (subscriber, #6206) [Link]
You need to get your narrow political agenda out of your ass and your brain into gear, you, the American Public are the fools who elected Bush and Cheney and continue to re-elect a corrupt Congress which causes these problems.
Term limits in the congress and vote everyone over 55 out of office
Take your country back and look at direct democracy eg Schweiz
New DoD memo on Open Source Software (David Wheeler's Blog) Posted Oct 28, 2009 3:02 UTC (Wed) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
Yes it is also the American public elected Walmart through spending
shitloads of cash to them.
The problem is democracy is not enough to ensure freedom and happy shit.
_YOUR_ governments (assuming you are somewhere in Europe or most places in
P.S. If you believe the multi-billion dollar, world wide, marketing
New DoD memo on Open Source Software (David Wheeler's Blog) Posted Oct 28, 2009 5:58 UTC (Wed) by jordanb (guest, #45668) [Link]
> Term limits in the congress and vote everyone over 55 out of office
> > Take your country back and look at direct democracy eg Schweiz
California has direct democracy and legislative term limits. Hey, they even have a guy from near "Schweiz" in the mansion!
It's not going so well though.. Imagine that.
Not Quite Posted Oct 28, 2009 20:26 UTC (Wed) by brianomahoney (subscriber, #6206) [Link]
First, California is NOT a direct democracy, in that the population can not either (a) initiate legislation, in detail; and an easily hi-jacked Proposition is not the same thing, and (b) the President/Governor has the 'signing' power that makes a law (here all law); so for example Schweiz is not in the EU, and probably never will be, BECAUSE that is the will of the people, the pols would love to join!
Second, while California has many problems, I lived there for nearly 20 years, it also has the world's third largest economy and has some of the best culture, Universities and business in the whole world, it also has more furits, nuts, gays and liberals, at least out as anywhere, although Schweiz and Deutschland are close seconds.
Last I laugh a bit about your seeming objection to writing 'Schweiz', that is what we write, we do not suggest you call America 'Vereinigte Staaten'
Finally, I think you got a very good deal from the Governator, der Österreich verlust ist für California ein gewinn, grüß Gott
New DoD memo on Open Source Software (David Wheeler's Blog) Posted Oct 28, 2009 12:58 UTC (Wed) by clugstj (subscriber, #4020) [Link]
OK, what if while you were serving in the military, someone was shooting at you and you had a defective weapon - thanks to your bright ideas? I'm quite certain you'd be singing a different tune then.
A bunch of bigots blind to consequences Posted Oct 27, 2009 23:50 UTC (Tue) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link]
It amazes me how many of you say you want a license which discriminates against the military. Aside from the narrow mindedness of it all, and aside from the bigotry of people who no doubt see themselves as anything but, I am mostly amazed that anyone thinks this is an easy case of black and white discrimination.
Will you ban soldiers from buying Android phones?
Will you ban military contractors from using free source software even if it isn't shipped?
Will you ban employees of military contractors from using free source software even in their spare time?
Will you ban their families from using free source software?
Will you ban UPS from shipping any free source software to any of the above?
Will you ban UPS from using free source software if they continue to ship to any of the above?
And will you ban yourself from enjoying any of the results of past military actions, no doubt some of which were earned by your ancestors? I refer not to abstract freedoms, but to concrete results -- don't go to Hawaii or in fact anywhere in the US outside of whatever territory was already held on July 4, 1776. Ditto for Europeans -- if you are French, start practicing your Heil Hitlers (and no, this is not a Godwin's Law case). If you are British, don't eat any curry or any other non-Anglo-Saxon food.
All you bigots are just as bad as those who try to ban on race, religion, or any other arbitrary nonsense. Short sighted, narrow minded, and intensely impractical.
A bunch of bigots blind to consequences Posted Oct 28, 2009 0:11 UTC (Wed) by kragil (guest, #34373) [Link]
Thanks for the insults, but as I said in an earlier reply such an license will be hard to formulate and IMO not so as widely applied as you say. I wouldn't like to see GNU/Bombs or GNU/Drones/Robots with weapons.
Having your code be involved in kill/not-kill decisions is scary .. it just is.
Idiot Posted Oct 28, 2009 0:46 UTC (Wed) by brianomahoney (subscriber, #6206) [Link]
Take your impractical, poorly thought out agenda, place it where the sun dosn't shine and keep it off LWN. Go blog on the Huffington Post or somewhere where it will be valued.
M$ was having a field day, at the expense of FOSS, FUDing the old document to the benefit of guys like Accentrure (Anderson Consulting as was) and others re-inventing the wheel at the taxpayer expense.
These guys make huge amounts of money manipulating the procurement process to keep the buyers isolated and under-informed and graft the decision makers.
They do all they can to prevent commoditization of software and solutions, pandering to local needs, often from non-experts.
Two examples, The Veterans Administration, has a good Med Record + Doctors service package, the industry is trying to bury it, claiming it is 'old-fashioned' ie it works.
The other, in Saudi-Arabia, at a large Hospital we were first to implement Oracle Financials + Procurement sucessfully. Why, we resisted all blandishments to hire 20 expensive Oracle consultants to Configure the system. Subsequently costs deminished by 30% as graft was made hard. Implementation took 6 months, while ither projects failed after 4 years.
Idiot Posted Oct 28, 2009 13:02 UTC (Wed) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]
>Take your impractical, poorly thought out agenda, place it where the sun dosn't shine and keep it off LWN. Go blog on the Huffington Post or somewhere where it will be valued.
Feel free to FOAD.
A bunch of bigots blind to consequences Posted Oct 28, 2009 0:50 UTC (Wed) by brianomahoney (subscriber, #6206) [Link]
Kragil, the solution is simple, stop writing code or copyright it personally and licence it to who you approve of.
Scary?!? Posted Oct 28, 2009 0:58 UTC (Wed) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link]
I have given away lots of things in life, software, hardware, birthday presents, you name it ... do you worry over everything you give away? How it might be thrown in the garbage instead of recycled? How it might be thrown at somebody, or cause somebody to trip and fall?
If you sweat that much over things you have given away, then stop giving them away. Like the other respondent said, stop using the GPL, make a very tight license of your own, demand an audit trail so you can be sure their suppliers don't violate the terms ...
Then purify your own life to make sure you don't offend anybody whose products you use. Do you eat meat, eggs, milk? Apologize to all the vegans who worked at making products you use.
When you can purify your own life to that extent, you will be a noble, starving, example to us all ... someone completely impractical to not emulate. Meanwhile, yes, take your politics to a personal blog or some website better suited to it. You have already polluted LWN and I await your apology for that.
A bunch of bigots blind to consequences Posted Nov 3, 2009 0:04 UTC (Tue) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
Obviously, you are unaware that curry is a British invention :-)
Yes, you WON'T find it in India, except where the British introduced it.
(The indians eat spiced meals, true, but not *curry*.)
Cheers,
The Next Logical Step Posted Oct 28, 2009 0:51 UTC (Wed) by NZheretic (guest, #409) [Link] To those of a passive outlook, I recommend you listen to or just read the linked short story by Ben Bova.
The Next Logical Step Posted Oct 28, 2009 9:35 UTC (Wed) by pheldens (guest, #19366) [Link]
No the military will always try to keep an edge ofcourse, by not licensing critical parts, much like even companies do, this story is bogus, that's why I said immediately the goals of both movements are mutually exclusive.
New DoD memo on Open Source Software (David Wheeler's Blog) Posted Oct 28, 2009 5:35 UTC (Wed) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
reading the official memo is very nice. It does a very good job of pointing out the OSS advantages. And while it does not mandate the use of OSS software it does specify that a survey of available options should include OSS software. As the article points out, now instead of having to justify considering OSS they will have to justify _not_ considering OSS.
this is _exactly_ what many people have been asking for for many years.
It's an official level playing field to compete against proprietary software. And even better, it points out the unique strengths of OSS so they can't be glossed over
New DoD memo on Open Source Software (David Wheeler's Blog) Posted Oct 28, 2009 9:07 UTC (Wed) by BlueLightning (subscriber, #38978) [Link]
It also might convince other branches of the US government that OSS use is OK - if it's good enough for the military, it ought to be good enough for anyone.
New DoD memo on Open Source Software (David Wheeler's Blog) Posted Oct 28, 2009 21:11 UTC (Wed) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
I'm still utterly shocked there's not an SELinux-based NSA-audited Linux distro for the DoD.
LOTS of good stuff in the supporting site and DoD FAQ Posted Oct 28, 2009 21:32 UTC (Wed) by dwheeler (guest, #1216) [Link] The DoD memo has a supporting FOSS site with the memo and a new DoD Open Source Software (OSS) FAQ. I think this FAQ has lots of good stuff (disclaimer: I helped write it). It tries to answer many of the questions - and eliminate the confusions - of people who are trying to use/develop OSS in the DoD.
|
|||||||||||||