What is Digg?33 Comments
- linuxpunk81, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Hmm well I'm in the navy and almost all the computer systems for sonar, firecontrol etc on our subs use linux or UNIX, X windows systems and various packages from KDE and Gnome amoung other things
- chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15OMGWTFBBQ!!!!
it's a dupe, the world as we ***** know it has imploded and everyone you love is dead!!! - danielwsmithee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Someone correct me if I am wrong but just because a software project uses Open Source software the terms of the license do not require that the new software be published does it? Everything built with GCC must be opensource? An application that uses MySQL for backend storage? In intranet web based application that uses open-source tools?
My understanding is that the source code must be made available only if the program is distributed. Since the DoD's work would be used on internal project/programs and the final product would not be published the source code does not need to be published. - Braska, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15Sightings of snowballs seen in hell
- burke, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14that's so ironic I think my head is going to explode.
- ZennZero, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@ Moe
Erm... Except you can *see* the source of everything that has been contributed back, so it would become known very quickly if that was the case.
At any rate, the US gov. has already contributed a great deal to OSS. Ever heard of SELinux? Tor? There are many examples. - evilTak, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13The headline is inaccurate. The article is about a third party urging the DoD to adopt open source, not vice versa.
- segphault, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Advanced Systems & Concepts is NOT a third party, it is a research agency within the department of defense.
- Buelldozer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I'm not a hardcore "free as in speech" kind of guy and I'm certainly not a *nix zealot but the whole Global Processing Unit / modified license thing really gets me up in arms.
In my opinion Global Processing Unit is a bunch of ignorant halfwits, and so is anyone else who seeks to limit the openness of the GPL.
In the end what GPU is saying with their crap is "you can only use our stuff if we agree with you philosiphically." That is CONTROL, pure and simple. How does this make different than any other dictator?
The GPL is about _freedom_, not control. If you want control then use the BSD license or something.
Addtionally, their change to the GPL may make their license invalid. What then? If they invalidate the GPL for their software then their "no military use" restriction goes right out the window.
In the end I reject their ***** modified GPL license and so does the Open community who are not "Open" in name only. - thetaco82, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6If you see a duplicate story, just bury it and keep your mouth shut. Nobody wants to see inane "DUPE!!" comments.
- akinder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Free software!*
*Unless we disagree with you, or don't like your ideas. - mikedoth, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5If the government does this, and gives the citizens back the source code to be double checked then how could this be a bad thing?
- Burmask, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Was Osama seen using win98.
- Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2digg for being at the countrys call and being on topic at teh same time
- Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2if there not destributing it like a software product they dont have to
as allready mentioned - nixfu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@danielwsmithee
GOLD STAR!
You are correct. - victimofkratina, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1anyone have a link to the paper?
nevermind...http://www.acq.osd.mil/actd/articles/OTDRoadmapFinal.pdf - segphault, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Advanced Systems & Concepts is a research agency within the department of defense. Their website even has a .mil domain. It is not a third party consultant group. Their job is to advise the people that set policy. If you look at the bios of the individuals that wrote the report, they are all professional engineers with a tremendous amount of practical experience.
- jim45804, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I guess this doesn't apply to open source under the GPL:
http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/08/14/1438204 - AlbinoRaven, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Is it now?
Or is it the usual nonsense of external contracting partners placed into the DoD heirarchy that have no place in being there except that they need to justify their 2400 a day. Hell I know CSC monkeys sitting in that exact section surrounded by hundreds of other consultants and contractors. What's the ratio now? One Captain per three hundred hired goons?
Engineers are nice. But the majority of those that took flight into management from the technical side I wouldn't trust to pick their nose or set the clock on a vcr. I would say out of my graduating class I wouldn't hire any of them as they are point bank useless. Good middle managers, poor innovators, terrible techies and decent writers.
DoD hasn't changed that much internally in six months. You are talking out of your ass. - me0wzilla, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0i agree, open source should work under the philosophy of 'common good', defense is good for one side and people usualy get hurt on both sides. I hope that alot of the open source licenses follow suit and include a no military clause!
- AlbinoRaven, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Which part of of DoD? Army, Navy, Air Force, Ops? The external client side, as in the non five eyes universe that is made of contractors and non-defense personel? Sure, they already do, they have for years. LAMP servers have been in use for a while depending on the project that needed to be implimented. Binds is used (everywhere).
The rest of DoD, I have no idea. Only soldiers go in those rooms.
On the ultra secure nuclear launching side. VMS. You all can have as much Windows/Linux/Mac soup as you want. The VMS with Alpha is ten years old and still kicks ass for availablility and it's all open source. But only to Galaxy class cleared individuals that are given need to know on how the code is put together for missle tracking, targeting and monitoring systems.
This article is like a broken pencil. Pointless - AlbinoRaven, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0And if anyone didn't notice. It's a consultants group making the recommendations. Not a contractors group. Slight difference in skill set. Consultants regurgitate time magazine articles for a living, A contractor actually does the technical work.
Between the two who would you choose to build a home, make your deck or fix your box? The talker or the person that does it for a living? - uriah923, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2It really doesn't matter that a third party or the Department of Defense is urging open source use, seeing that Global Processing Unit (GPU), has just modified its General Public License (GPL) to include a no military use clause. (See http://www.omninerd.com/2006/08/14/news/875 ) I bet that other open source projects follow suit, and I don't blame them. Although limitations seem counter to the whole "open" philosophy, I think they're actually necessary to keep the project working for the "common good."
- MoeB, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3wishful thinking my friend. of course no one would want it... it probably would spy on your computer, read your emails or perhaps take blood samples so they can create the ultimate database. and then track you down. perhaps even sabotage your presidential campain by releasing your surfing history. and we all know what you do on friday nights...
- ZPWeeks, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3And of *course* DoD's modifications to the source would be contributed back to everyone in the OSS community....
- mikedoth, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1It's not like MS is in the government's pocket...
- ruxpin2, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1is it me or does this sound like a scam so they can read all of our data and "find" more "terrorists" ?
- bantam, on 10/12/2007, -18/+7yeah this is a dupe...
- officecamel, on 10/12/2007, -20/+7Another duplicate...ARGH!
- OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -34/+8THIS IS ON THE FRONT PAGE RIGHT NOW! IT IS A MASSIVE DUPE!
http://digg.com/linux_unix/Defense_Dept_Report_Urges_Adoption_of_Open_Technology
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is