4 ms·

So will they help fund the projects now, or will they just express their opinions on how your unpaid work should be done?

by yazzku 4y ago

rtev 4y ago
That’s really the question, isn’t it? The article makes it sound like hiring “open source devs” may be part of the strategy, which essentially amounts to anyone with a public GitHub repo.
- adastra22 4y ago
  No the people hired will be IBM consultants and such with long lists of meaningless qualifications and no GitHub profile.
  - verisimilitudes 4y ago
    No the people hired will be IBM consultants and such with long lists of meaningless qualifications and no MicroSoft profile.
    - adastra22 4y ago
      Oh no, they’ll have all the Microsoft certifications too.
Schroedingersat 4y ago
Don't worry about it. It's just code for 'government departments only get to use software from giant corps with well known and unpatched bugs now'.
RobotToaster 4y ago
Do licenses like the GPL even apply to TLA like the NSA and CIA? Or could they just make patches for themselves and not release them?
- Rebelgecko 4y ago
  Anyone can make open source code changes and be license compliant as long as you don't release the binary (YMMV depending on specific license). However as soon as you give someone binaries they're entitled to request the source. I'd love to see a future with goofy situations like Iran suing for the stuxnet source code because it statically linked a GPL library.
  - xxpor 4y ago
    where it gets really goofy is the US gov work doesn't have copyright itself, so wouldn't any work done by them be PD, regardless of the underlying license?
    - not2b 4y ago
      If they extend an existing GPL work, the work as a whole is GPL, even if their added code is PD.
    - kmeisthax 4y ago
      My gut feeling is no, because the work is still a derivative work of a privately-owned copyrighted work, and private copyright does not dissolve when the government touches it. If you could separate the governments' code from the GPL code, then it would be automatically public domain, but the combination is still GPL. However I'm not aware of any case law proving this.
  - SllX 4y ago
    My first instinct is that sovereign immunity applies. GPL is a license designed to protect the copyrights of the creator or copyright owner, but copyright itself is a privilege granted by the Federal government and protected by law. So if you sued them for violating the GPL, I’m fairly certain they could just claim sovereign immunity in court.
    - pabs3 4y ago
      There is a comment about that up-thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32957861 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32957861
9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
There is this little nugget: “The legislation also requires CISA to hire professionals with experience developing open source software to ensure that government and the community work hand-in-hand and are prepared to address incidents like the Log4j vulnerability.”
- encryptluks2 4y ago
  Unless it specifies who this just means they'll throw a few billion to Teksystems, CGI or whoever and then say that it was a failure like HealthCare.gov
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - tomrod 4y ago
    That spawned a lot of good things. Check out 18F and USDS.
    - encryptluks2 4y ago
      There are special exceptions, but definitely not the norm.
      - tomrod 4y ago
        Except for the change in acquisition and contracting behind the scenes that was driven by that colossal failure. Have you noticed that the IRS website is accessible and searchable? That SBA is functional? Conpare that to, say, Department of Commerce, where things are a mess (currently). The US realized it needed to pick things up a bit and, while it's still a hard space to work in, started to shift to a better playbook. https://playbook.cio.gov/ https://playbook.cio.gov/
NaturalPhallacy 4y ago
Without the text of the bill should show up here eventually: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/4913/titles https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/491... There's no way to actually know. Everything not based on the text of the bill is pure speculation.

So will they help fund the projects now, or will they just express their opinions on how your unpaid work should be done?

by yazzku 4y ago

So will they help fund the projects now, or will they just express their opinions on how your unpaid work should be done?

rtev 4y ago

That’s really the question, isn’t it? The article makes it sound like hiring “open source devs” may be part of the strategy, which essentially amounts to anyone with a public GitHub repo.

adastra22 4y ago
No the people hired will be IBM consultants and such with long lists of meaningless qualifications and no GitHub profile.
- verisimilitudes 4y ago
  No the people hired will be IBM consultants and such with long lists of meaningless qualifications and no MicroSoft profile.
  - adastra22 4y ago
    Oh no, they’ll have all the Microsoft certifications too.

Schroedingersat 4y ago

Don't worry about it. It's just code for 'government departments only get to use software from giant corps with well known and unpatched bugs now'.

RobotToaster 4y ago

Do licenses like the GPL even apply to TLA like the NSA and CIA? Or could they just make patches for themselves and not release them?

Rebelgecko 4y ago
Anyone can make open source code changes and be license compliant as long as you don't release the binary (YMMV depending on specific license). However as soon as you give someone binaries they're entitled to request the source. I'd love to see a future with goofy situations like Iran suing for the stuxnet source code because it statically linked a GPL library.
- xxpor 4y ago
  where it gets really goofy is the US gov work doesn't have copyright itself, so wouldn't any work done by them be PD, regardless of the underlying license?
  - not2b 4y ago
    If they extend an existing GPL work, the work as a whole is GPL, even if their added code is PD.
  - kmeisthax 4y ago
    My gut feeling is no, because the work is still a derivative work of a privately-owned copyrighted work, and private copyright does not dissolve when the government touches it. If you could separate the governments' code from the GPL code, then it would be automatically public domain, but the combination is still GPL. However I'm not aware of any case law proving this.
- SllX 4y ago
  My first instinct is that sovereign immunity applies. GPL is a license designed to protect the copyrights of the creator or copyright owner, but copyright itself is a privilege granted by the Federal government and protected by law. So if you sued them for violating the GPL, I’m fairly certain they could just claim sovereign immunity in court.
  - pabs3 4y ago
    There is a comment about that up-thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32957861 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32957861

9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago

There is this little nugget: “The legislation also requires CISA to hire professionals with experience developing open source software to ensure that government and the community work hand-in-hand and are prepared to address incidents like the Log4j vulnerability.”

encryptluks2 4y ago
Unless it specifies who this just means they'll throw a few billion to Teksystems, CGI or whoever and then say that it was a failure like HealthCare.gov
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- tomrod 4y ago
  That spawned a lot of good things. Check out 18F and USDS.
  - encryptluks2 4y ago
    There are special exceptions, but definitely not the norm.
    - tomrod 4y ago
      Except for the change in acquisition and contracting behind the scenes that was driven by that colossal failure. Have you noticed that the IRS website is accessible and searchable? That SBA is functional? Conpare that to, say, Department of Commerce, where things are a mess (currently). The US realized it needed to pick things up a bit and, while it's still a hard space to work in, started to shift to a better playbook. https://playbook.cio.gov/ https://playbook.cio.gov/

NaturalPhallacy 4y ago

Without the text of the bill should show up here eventually: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/4913/titles https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/491... There's no way to actually know. Everything not based on the text of the bill is pure speculation.