SoylentNews

Uncle Sam Needs You... to Debug, Improve Dept of Defense Open-Source Software at Code.Mil

posted by on Sunday February 26 2017, @07:54PM   
from the spooks-needed dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

The US Department of Defense wants you to contribute unclassified code to software projects developed in support of national security. Toward that end, it has launched Code.mil, which points to a Github repository intended to offer public access to code financed by public money. But at the moment, the DoD's repo lacks any actual code.

Open source and free software represent industry best practices, the DoD said in a statement, even as it acknowledged the agency has yet to widely adopt it. Code.mil represents an attempt to change that dynamic. On the project website, the DoD goes so far as to suggest that anything other than open source software puts lives at risk.

"US military members and their families make significant sacrifices to protect our country," the agency explains in its FAQs. "Their lives should not be negatively impacted by outdated tools and software development practices that lag far behind private sector standards." And in case that isn't clear enough, the agency states, "Modern software is open sourced software."

-- submitted from IRC

---

Original Submission

• Channeling RMS (Score: 3, Interesting) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Monday February 27 2017, @08:13AM

  by Scruffy Beard 2 (6030) on Monday February 27 2017, @08:13AM (#472163)

  The official definition of “open source software” (which is published by the Open Source Initiative and is too long to include here) was derived indirectly from our criteria for free software. It is not the same; it is a little looser in some respects. Nonetheless, their definition agrees with our definition in most cases.

  However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software”—and the one most people seem to think it means—is “You can look at the source code.” That criterion is much weaker than the free software definition, much weaker also than the official definition of open source. It includes many programs that are neither free nor open source.

  Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software [gnu.org]

  Microsoft has experimented it open source, non-free software under their Shared source initiative [microsoft.com].

  The fine article explicitly mentions Free software:

  Open source and free software (which refers to software freedom, not free of cost) are industry best practices and integral parts of modern software development. They, however, are concepts yet to be widely adopted within the department. With Code.mil, DoD can access a depth and breadth of technical skill previously underutilized while offering software tools created by the government for free public use.
  ...
  DoD faces unique challenges in open sourcing its code. Code written by federal government employees typically does not have copyright protections under U.S. and some international laws, which creates difficulties in attaching open source licenses.

  Code.mil is experimenting with a legal pathway of using contract law in the Defense Open Source Agreement to add commonly used licenses to DoD software projects. DDS consulted with the Open Source Initiative and Free Software Foundation on devising a comprehensive approach to both open and free software.

  ..probably like how a Certain Redmond or Cupertino OSs used to leverage contract law to enforce "End User License Agreements".

  I have not checked Apple recently, but around Windows 7/8, Microsoft apparently switched to Patent law by replacing "by clicking .. You agree" to "by using the computer you agree".

  Parent

  Starting Score:	1		point
  Moderation		+1
  Interesting=1, Total=1
  Extra 'Interesting' Modifier		0
  Karma-Bonus Modifier		+1
  Total Score:		3