SCALE: Advocating FOSS at the DoD

I think defence contractors are in a slightly awkward position with respect to the GPL, in that they are required (by the copyright holder) to make an offer of an extra thing that hasn't been requisitioned by the DoD. People fulfilling defence contracts don't normally deliver anything that wasn't required by the contract with the government, and there isn't necessarily a way to confirm that it was received. If a copyright holder shows up with evidence that the contractor delivered partially-GPL software to the DoD, and wants to audit the contractor for license compliance, how does the contractor demonstrate that the offer was made to the DoD, unless the DoD is set up to receive and acknowledge those offers. Of course, it's unlikely that a kernel developer would be able to demonstrate that a defence contractor had GPL obligations for a classified delivery, but that doesn't mean that the defence contractors' lawyers are comfortable not having any documentation of license compliance.

Of course, there's the additional complexity that, if the DoD doesn't specify source and a license to it in the RFP, it's highly improbable that the DoD would then follow up on an offer of source even if one were made. So the defence contractor can probably get away with making the offer but not actually being prepare to fulfill it. And the DoD generally wants to avoid anyone having legal problems (hence this particular forum), and can simply say that a contractor's GPL obligations to the DoD are satisfied (unless the DoD decided in advance that they wanted source).

I've personally delivered a laptop with GPL software to an Army lieutenant to satisfy a DoD contract. IIRC, he looked blankly at me when I offered him the source. I was satisfied, but I don't know that a lawyer for a defence contractor would have been.