5 ms·

Mostly sortof true, but there are lots of complications. I've delved into this. For lots of detail on the current situation, see my paper, "Publicly Releasing

Mostly sortof true, but there are lots of complications. I've delved into this. For lots of detail on the current situation, see my paper, "Publicly Releasing Open Source Software Developed for the U.S. Government" by David A. Wheeler, https://www.csiac.org/journal-article/publicly-releasing-open-source-software-developed-for-the-u-s-government/ https://www.csiac.org/journal-article/publicly-releasing-ope... In almost all cases, if a US Federal employee writes software as part of his/her official duties, then there is no copyright IN THE UNITED STATES. There are a few exceptions (e.g., US Post Service Employees). Also, copyright doesn't apply in the US - but outside is a different matter (though enforcing said copyright is more complicated, and I would argue the US shouldn't try). More importantly, there may not be a copyright, but that doesn't guarantee release to the public (and often there isn't). You can ask via a FOIA, but that's no guarantee you'll get it. HOWEVER: Most software developed by government funds is developed, at least in part, by contractors. And that is a COMPLETELY different circumstance. The details, unsurprisingly, depend on the contract. If you're interested in the DoD, I suggest going to the MIL-OSS mailing list: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/mil-oss https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/mil-oss It's possible to release software to the public. One approach is to get pre-approval where "as long as the changes meet this scope, and follow these rules, it's okay to post the changes." But you have to get local buy-in. In short: In a lot of places in the US federal government it's definitely difficult to do what in the rest of the world is normal. In the US, state/local/tribal is completely different, and I definitely don't claim to know the laws of other countries. Others can explain that better.

pbhjpbhj 8y ago
>Most software developed by government funds is developed, at least in part, by contractors. And that is a COMPLETELY different circumstance. The details, unsurprisingly, depend on the contract. // Isn't the point that the contact should have a non-negotiable OSS clause of it's using public funds. My impression, from my seat in Europe, is that USA government is run by rich capitalists that would as soon eat faeces live on TV as suggest private corporations be required to service the public good?
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > My impression, from my seat in Europe, is that USA government is run by rich capitalists that would as soon eat faeces live on TV as suggest private corporations be required to service the public good? Not quite true. Rich capitalists largely have better things to do than bother with the details of running government. But it is, to a large extent, run by people under the influence of (whether directly seeking money, or just manipulated by paid propaganda) rich capitalists who would rather engage in public coprophagia than have such requirements imposed.
  - anth_anm 8y ago
    They don't care about what the government does, subject to the bounds of "don't touch my money". The ones who do care more than that tend to be absolutely awful.
    - Godel_unicode 8y ago
      Like Tesla? Or Patagonia, or REI, or allbirds, or bullfrog power, or seventh generation?
      - TheForumTroll 8y ago
        >The ones who do care more than that "Like Tesla?" >tend to be absolutely awful. Exactly.
      - anth_anm 8y ago
        Like Mercer, who buys up local news outlets to push his propaganda.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- da_chicken 8y ago
  > Isn't the point that the contact should have a non-negotiable OSS clause of it's using public funds. Okay. Say you're a vendor for student information systems. It handles registration, enrollment, scheduling, attendance, report cards, state and federal reporting, teacher gradebooks, parent portal, etc. You sell your product to one school district with 800 students for an initial fee of $100,000 plus an annual fee of $5 per student and $10,000 for up to X hours of direct support (note: these numbers are not far off the actual costs). Except now it's open source, and every one of the hundreds of thousands of school districts in the country suddenly has access to your software without charge. Sure, you can come up with dozens of reasons why that's great for schools, but you're the SIS vendor that just spent a couple million dollars producing the software. Why would you be in a business where the moment you sell your product, you can no longer sell your product? Support? Okay, but you'll immediately be competing with other support vendors, etc.
prepend 8y ago
The most common clause for it contracts that produce software is called “Rights in Data - General” [0] and by default, without alternatives explicitly stated, it allows the government to distribute in an unlimited manner anything created by the contractor. So the good news is that any government contractor overseeing a contract should be able to release it as OSS, if ve wants. Bad news is that it’s effort and risk to do it correctly. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/48/52.227-14 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/48/52.227-14
killjoywashere 8y ago
This DoD CyberSecurity Policy Chart in the sidebar is epic: https://dodiac.dtic.mil/dod-cybersecurity-policy-chart/ https://dodiac.dtic.mil/dod-cybersecurity-policy-chart/ Clearly, they don't want new ideas.
- spydum 8y ago
  I think they just try to idiot proof too much, which ends up a bureaucratic nightmare.

pbhjpbhj 8y ago

>Most software developed by government funds is developed, at least in part, by contractors. And that is a COMPLETELY different circumstance. The details, unsurprisingly, depend on the contract. // Isn't the point that the contact should have a non-negotiable OSS clause of it's using public funds. My impression, from my seat in Europe, is that USA government is run by rich capitalists that would as soon eat faeces live on TV as suggest private corporations be required to service the public good?

dragonwriter 8y ago
> My impression, from my seat in Europe, is that USA government is run by rich capitalists that would as soon eat faeces live on TV as suggest private corporations be required to service the public good? Not quite true. Rich capitalists largely have better things to do than bother with the details of running government. But it is, to a large extent, run by people under the influence of (whether directly seeking money, or just manipulated by paid propaganda) rich capitalists who would rather engage in public coprophagia than have such requirements imposed.
- anth_anm 8y ago
  They don't care about what the government does, subject to the bounds of "don't touch my money". The ones who do care more than that tend to be absolutely awful.
  - Godel_unicode 8y ago
    Like Tesla? Or Patagonia, or REI, or allbirds, or bullfrog power, or seventh generation?
    - TheForumTroll 8y ago
      >The ones who do care more than that "Like Tesla?" >tend to be absolutely awful. Exactly.
    - anth_anm 8y ago
      Like Mercer, who buys up local news outlets to push his propaganda.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
da_chicken 8y ago
> Isn't the point that the contact should have a non-negotiable OSS clause of it's using public funds. Okay. Say you're a vendor for student information systems. It handles registration, enrollment, scheduling, attendance, report cards, state and federal reporting, teacher gradebooks, parent portal, etc. You sell your product to one school district with 800 students for an initial fee of $100,000 plus an annual fee of $5 per student and $10,000 for up to X hours of direct support (note: these numbers are not far off the actual costs). Except now it's open source, and every one of the hundreds of thousands of school districts in the country suddenly has access to your software without charge. Sure, you can come up with dozens of reasons why that's great for schools, but you're the SIS vendor that just spent a couple million dollars producing the software. Why would you be in a business where the moment you sell your product, you can no longer sell your product? Support? Okay, but you'll immediately be competing with other support vendors, etc.

prepend 8y ago

The most common clause for it contracts that produce software is called “Rights in Data - General” [0] and by default, without alternatives explicitly stated, it allows the government to distribute in an unlimited manner anything created by the contractor. So the good news is that any government contractor overseeing a contract should be able to release it as OSS, if ve wants. Bad news is that it’s effort and risk to do it correctly. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/48/52.227-14 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/48/52.227-14

killjoywashere 8y ago

This DoD CyberSecurity Policy Chart in the sidebar is epic: https://dodiac.dtic.mil/dod-cybersecurity-policy-chart/ https://dodiac.dtic.mil/dod-cybersecurity-policy-chart/ Clearly, they don't want new ideas.

spydum 8y ago
I think they just try to idiot proof too much, which ends up a bureaucratic nightmare.