4 ms·

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
Cyberdog 4y ago
When government agencies behave within the law, it is by coincidence, if not an accident which will soon be rectified.
Longlius 4y ago
GPL only requires you to provide source code when you provide an executable program. If their internal software isn't released outside the organization, then source code does not need to be either.
- mistrial9 4y ago
  google famously used this clause and that was near twenty years ago.. things have evolved in GPL land https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License
m463 4y ago
Might depend on whether copyright applies to the agencies, since the GPL depends on copyright itself.
kmeisthax 4y ago
Yes. The US federal government has voluntarily relinquished their sovereign immunity and they can and often do get sued for copyright violations. Of course, given that the NSA/CIA have the luxury of classification, the resulting lawsuit will be even more complicated than a normal copyright lawsuit (which is already one of the most expensive and frustrating parts of law to litigate). States are where you need to worry. Occasionally a state decides to pass a law[0] saying they can't be sued for certain copyright violations. Because of how the US constitution is set up, states (and nothing smaller than them) are allowed to just say they can't be sued, which lets them crime with impunity. [0] https://www.npr.org/2020/03/24/820381016/in-blackbeard-pirate-ship-case-supreme-court-scuttles-copyright-claims https://www.npr.org/2020/03/24/820381016/in-blackbeard-pirat...

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

Cyberdog 4y ago

When government agencies behave within the law, it is by coincidence, if not an accident which will soon be rectified.

Longlius 4y ago

GPL only requires you to provide source code when you provide an executable program. If their internal software isn't released outside the organization, then source code does not need to be either.

mistrial9 4y ago
google famously used this clause and that was near twenty years ago.. things have evolved in GPL land https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License

m463 4y ago

Might depend on whether copyright applies to the agencies, since the GPL depends on copyright itself.

kmeisthax 4y ago

Yes. The US federal government has voluntarily relinquished their sovereign immunity and they can and often do get sued for copyright violations. Of course, given that the NSA/CIA have the luxury of classification, the resulting lawsuit will be even more complicated than a normal copyright lawsuit (which is already one of the most expensive and frustrating parts of law to litigate). States are where you need to worry. Occasionally a state decides to pass a law[0] saying they can't be sued for certain copyright violations. Because of how the US constitution is set up, states (and nothing smaller than them) are allowed to just say they can't be sued, which lets them crime with impunity. [0] https://www.npr.org/2020/03/24/820381016/in-blackbeard-pirate-ship-case-supreme-court-scuttles-copyright-claims https://www.npr.org/2020/03/24/820381016/in-blackbeard-pirat...