Congressmen oppose Open Source

Newsforge ^ | 10/23/02 | Wisconsin

[TechJunkYard]

if it is pure public domain, then anyone can use the code in their own apps without acknowledging the fact.

Right; the commercial guys can use the code in their products, and so can the open-source guys.

There is nothing to prevent an entity from charging for a commercial app that was basically created via our tax dollars. This breaks the spirit of public domain.

No, the original code is still public-domain, but the derivitive products would be billable.

The GPL corrects that problem.

Not a problem. We all get to use the government code. The closed-source folks are happy because they don't have to expose their source code. The open-source crowd is happy because the government isn't favoring commercialism.

Public-domain is the key.

[Havoc]

The license is taylored to a specific aim which does not cover all the possible applications of developed software.
I don't like the bleatin license agreement on the one hand but it does fit the scriptural notion of freely you have recieved - freely give.

[TechJunkYard]

The better question is, why is the government even financing software development.

It's a matter of securing the country's network infrastructure. Obviously the profit-driven commercial software houses are not up to the task, and the government thinks it needs to step in.

[dheretic]

I don't follow your logic. If code is "open source", it doesn't stop being "open source" if someone incorporates it into proprietary commercial software.

If China were to verbatim copy the US Bill of Rights in its constitution but add a stipulation that says you can't use them against the government, would it still be the same? No. Once you change the licensing, it isn't open source anymore.

[philetus]

Congressmen oppose Open Source


Translation: We don't get any kickbacks from open source

[TechJunkYard]

If China were to verbatim copy the US Bill of Rights in its constitution but add a stipulation that says...

But that doesn't change the original.

[TheEngineer]

The better question is, why is the government even financing software development.

First, I want to say that I agree with you 100%. But, I can think of a situation where it makes sense...

The LAPACK/LINPACK project was started to reduce the cost of DOD/DOE govt contracts. The govt guys realized that there was a lot of duplication of effort by the various defense contractors on things like writing basic math subroutines. It was frustrating for them to pay 8 competing defense contractors for a project, and realize that each developed their own basic math subroutines on the govt nickel.

So they decided to set up a project to develop (and pay for) the subroutines once and make them then freely available to all players. This actually made a lot of sense, and saved the taxpayers money.

[Bush2000]

I don't follow your logic. If code is "open source", it doesn't stop being "open source" if someone incorporates it into proprietary commercial software.

Dude, don't waste your time arguing about this. Open source is just a way for these guys to piss on Bill Gates's doormat.

[TheEngineer]

Regarding your post #21... Perfectly stated. I agree completely.

[Bush2000]

Distict nine happen to include Redmond WA ?

Nope. Jennifer Dunn.

[TheEngineer]

Dude, don't waste your time arguing about this.

LOL! You're right... I'd better get back to work. :-)

[dheretic]

But that doesn't change the original.

The derivative is of a vastly different nature.

[TechJunkYard]

by Adam Smith, Congressman for the Ninth District in the State of Washington. Distict nine happen to include Redmond WA ?

No kidding? Well, then this won't surprise you.

[newberger]

Ah, but the "freely give" in this case is not what you have
received but everything it touches. Although I'm no Microsoft fan,
I have to agree with them that the GPL is
virus like in that way.

Now the LGPL, if it can be applied to non-libraries might
be a good bet for gov't financed software. Although I don't
believe that enhancements should be covered.

And what do you mean "freely received"? We pay for that
software with tax dollars.

[TechJunkYard]

The derivative is of a vastly different nature.

So what? It doesn't affect us here in the USA because the original is still in force.

If CIAO releases new guidelines about handling MIME extensions, and provides sample code to go with it, Microsoft grabs a copy, and I grab a copy. Whatever MS does with their copy does not affect my copy and what I do with it.

What's your point?

[altair]

If the government (we) pay for it, and the software is released... it should be public-domain software.

Except for classified software, like avionics for spy planes, etc., that's the law for all government-funded software. Or, at least it used to be.

[altair]

Agreed the GPL tries to grab my software and make it Open Source if I use code subject to GPL.

The answer to that is very simple and you already know it.

I won't touch the stuff.

You got it. If you don't like the license, don't use it. There is nothing inherent in the GPL that prevents commercial use of GPL software. However, if you want to take GPL'ed software and incorporate it into proprietary software and hide the source, sorry you can't do that. It's theft as we see it.

[altair]

Essentially, if you link to or otherwise incorporate GPL'ed software in your product then YOU ARE OBLIGED to release your product under GPL.

Exactly. That's the whole point. Note that there are plenty of reasonable exceptions. You are allowed to distribute entire GPL'ed programs in an otherwise proprietary software suite. One example is BitKeeper which distributes GNU diff and GNU patch. Another example is the GPL'ed Linux kernel. Linus has explicitly allowed proprietary, non-GPL'ed modules to be loaded at run-time.

[altair]

Stallman is an avowed communist. There's a difference. Have you ever read the GNU Manifesto?

[Crispy]

"Agreed. I have a problem when an OSS developer gets his paycheck from the government, and then puts his own restrictive license (such as GPL) on the product software. (If the government funding agency slaps some sort of license on the software, that's a whole different issue.) If the government (we) pay for it, and the software is released... it should be public-domain software."

I agree. The BSD license would be good for this sort of thing. With the BSD license, corporations and private citizens could do whatever they wanted to with the source code.