7 ms·

There are a lot of good reasons to do this, even if it's just better interop between different branches of the government, all cool. However, you then realize

There are a lot of good reasons to do this, even if it's just better interop between different branches of the government, all cool. However, you then realize that the military is funded by public money. I'd wager you don't want fighter jet or missile guidance software to be open source. The idea is way too simplistic and lacks nuance.

tomrod 3y ago
Civilian agencies would be a start.
inciampati 3y ago
To communicate it and receive your commentary it had to be clear and simple. Of course there are caveats, and these are the kind of thing that makes law difficult and complex despite the overall objective being clear and straightforward.
redox99 3y ago
> I'd wager you don't want fighter jet or missile guidance software to be open source. I'd be OK with that.
- edrxty 3y ago
  When you consider that many guided missiles are, in fact, fully autonomous AI robots that chase and kill people, damn straight.
  - askvictor 3y ago
    The software isn't that difficult part though.
- dayjaby 3y ago
  DIY missiles incoming.
  - bombolo 3y ago
    They are still technically difficult to build, and making explosives is the easy part. If someone had wanted to explode you badly enough, they'd have done it without self guiding missile already.
GabeIsko 3y ago
Obviously there is classified technical information that isn't public, but the DoD is a huge Redhat shop. Food for thought.
burnished 3y ago
Why do you assume that sane and common sense exceptions and nuance are off the table?
- jhawleypeters 3y ago
  The linked site speaks in absolute terms, perhaps that's where they got the idea
  - burnished 3y ago
    That it be licensed with an open source license, yet folk are acting like they've never heard of security clearances, or that the license will somehow supercede all of our other laws regarding document security. Then again I wouldn't be surprised if the same voices on hearing freedom of information being proposed to raise similar "but military secrets" objections that were completely divorced from reality.
  - chillbill 3y ago
    They don't speak in absolute terms, but in generic terms. There's an important difference between the two. The extreme doesn't define the rule.
  - bombolo 3y ago
    If your missiles stop being effective if the other side has access to the source code… well I got bad news. They've already obtained the source code.
- AmericanChopper 3y ago
  Probably because the campaign this post links to puts forward a completely un-nuanced argument, and even trivialises or brushes over most of the reasonable criticism you could make about the case it’s putting forward. I don’t know why so many activists fail to understand this. If you have a cause that you think is important, putting forward a shitty argument for it isn’t going to help in the long run.
  - 3y ago
tptacek 3y ago
Missile guidance software isn't generally produced by public agencies, right? It's produced by private companies and licensed to the government. The same way Microsoft Windows is.
- vermilingua 3y ago
  If that's your yardstick, I'd wager very little software will get published under this scheme
  - tptacek 3y ago
    That is my yardstick and also my prediction for the impact of a scheme like this.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  If it is actually produced by the federal government, it can’t be open source because it is already public domain. “Public money, public code” either refers, in the US, exclusively to state governments, or it applies to software developed under government contracts (and possibly other software purchased by government), not just software developed by the government itself.
  - EMIRELADERO 3y ago
    I did my research and the public domain mandate for federal works apparently doesn't apply to the states. Some states actually enforce their copyrights and have whole licensing systems for state government-produced works. Isn't this a whole 1st Amendment violation? The law is intended for private parties and the 1st is incorporated to the states since a very long time. Has anyone sued over this?
    - idlewords 3y ago
      The full text of the First Amendment is short: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Where is the connection to requiring anything to be put in the public domain?
eyelidlessness 3y ago
> I'd wager you don't want fighter jet or missile guidance software to be open source. Why not? I can think of some reasons but they mostly devolve to security by obscurity and a whole lot of assumptions to even get there. The actors who want to know are already in the know. At least open sourcing the rest would be a compelling lever to avoid accidentally escalating conflicts.
- zmgsabst 3y ago
  Signatures are carefully protected and used for targeting. If you disclose everything about how a targeting system or sensor system operates, it becomes easier to defeat. But I think there’s a happy medium where the framework and general missile/sensor code is disclosed — but truly critical information like the sonar signature of enemy submarines is protected.
  - sam_lowry_ 3y ago
    Google open-souces a lot but keeps the search algorithm in secret.
  - bombolo 3y ago
    Is a radar signature "source code"? Do you generate radar signatures with gcc? Your comment makes little sense.
arp242 3y ago
That kind of nuance seems implicit, and isn't something that needs to be mentioned in a campaign to get the basic idea across. Remember that this is aimed to people are not really familiar with these sort of ideas at all.
DesiLurker 3y ago
Great, now use that clearly specialized use case to drive public policy for every single common use case. There is such a thing as bad faith arguments. By default everything public paid should be open sourced, if there are cases exception is needed like military then exceptions can be made on application basis.
- funcDropShadow 3y ago
  GP wrote > The idea is way too simplistic and lacks nuance. and you wrote > There is such a thing as bad faith arguments. Why is it a bad faith argument? GP clearly admitted that no straight forward solution that treats every case the same is going to be good. That is the same you argued for.
  - nmilo 3y ago
    Because pointing out that a slogan is simple and in-nuanced is unhelpful, and in bad faith. They're supposed to be simple. Slogans in a democracy are calls to action towards a general idea, and the more complicated they are the less people they can rally. Obviously the nuance will come when lawmakers actually put the thing into writing.
chillbill 3y ago
Yes there is nuance, but public policy is not defined by the extreme. In the vast majority of digital-services-for-public it _should_ be public code as well. The areas where nuance exists can be discussed further. The extreme doesn't define the rule.
asdfman123 3y ago
The government has land that is public as well as land you can’t walk on, and we are able to handle the nuances of that.
RobotToaster 3y ago
>I'd wager you don't want fighter jet or missile guidance software to be open source. If I can't exercise my 2nd amendment right to open source cruise missiles, am I really free? (fnord)

tomrod 3y ago

Civilian agencies would be a start.

inciampati 3y ago

To communicate it and receive your commentary it had to be clear and simple. Of course there are caveats, and these are the kind of thing that makes law difficult and complex despite the overall objective being clear and straightforward.

redox99 3y ago

> I'd wager you don't want fighter jet or missile guidance software to be open source. I'd be OK with that.

edrxty 3y ago
When you consider that many guided missiles are, in fact, fully autonomous AI robots that chase and kill people, damn straight.
- askvictor 3y ago
  The software isn't that difficult part though.
dayjaby 3y ago
DIY missiles incoming.
- bombolo 3y ago
  They are still technically difficult to build, and making explosives is the easy part. If someone had wanted to explode you badly enough, they'd have done it without self guiding missile already.

GabeIsko 3y ago

Obviously there is classified technical information that isn't public, but the DoD is a huge Redhat shop. Food for thought.

burnished 3y ago

Why do you assume that sane and common sense exceptions and nuance are off the table?

jhawleypeters 3y ago
The linked site speaks in absolute terms, perhaps that's where they got the idea
- burnished 3y ago
  That it be licensed with an open source license, yet folk are acting like they've never heard of security clearances, or that the license will somehow supercede all of our other laws regarding document security. Then again I wouldn't be surprised if the same voices on hearing freedom of information being proposed to raise similar "but military secrets" objections that were completely divorced from reality.
- chillbill 3y ago
  They don't speak in absolute terms, but in generic terms. There's an important difference between the two. The extreme doesn't define the rule.
- bombolo 3y ago
  If your missiles stop being effective if the other side has access to the source code… well I got bad news. They've already obtained the source code.
AmericanChopper 3y ago
Probably because the campaign this post links to puts forward a completely un-nuanced argument, and even trivialises or brushes over most of the reasonable criticism you could make about the case it’s putting forward. I don’t know why so many activists fail to understand this. If you have a cause that you think is important, putting forward a shitty argument for it isn’t going to help in the long run.
- 3y ago

tptacek 3y ago

Missile guidance software isn't generally produced by public agencies, right? It's produced by private companies and licensed to the government. The same way Microsoft Windows is.

vermilingua 3y ago
If that's your yardstick, I'd wager very little software will get published under this scheme
- tptacek 3y ago
  That is my yardstick and also my prediction for the impact of a scheme like this.
dragonwriter 3y ago
If it is actually produced by the federal government, it can’t be open source because it is already public domain. “Public money, public code” either refers, in the US, exclusively to state governments, or it applies to software developed under government contracts (and possibly other software purchased by government), not just software developed by the government itself.
- EMIRELADERO 3y ago
  I did my research and the public domain mandate for federal works apparently doesn't apply to the states. Some states actually enforce their copyrights and have whole licensing systems for state government-produced works. Isn't this a whole 1st Amendment violation? The law is intended for private parties and the 1st is incorporated to the states since a very long time. Has anyone sued over this?
  - idlewords 3y ago
    The full text of the First Amendment is short: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Where is the connection to requiring anything to be put in the public domain?

eyelidlessness 3y ago

> I'd wager you don't want fighter jet or missile guidance software to be open source. Why not? I can think of some reasons but they mostly devolve to security by obscurity and a whole lot of assumptions to even get there. The actors who want to know are already in the know. At least open sourcing the rest would be a compelling lever to avoid accidentally escalating conflicts.

zmgsabst 3y ago
Signatures are carefully protected and used for targeting. If you disclose everything about how a targeting system or sensor system operates, it becomes easier to defeat. But I think there’s a happy medium where the framework and general missile/sensor code is disclosed — but truly critical information like the sonar signature of enemy submarines is protected.
- sam_lowry_ 3y ago
  Google open-souces a lot but keeps the search algorithm in secret.
- bombolo 3y ago
  Is a radar signature "source code"? Do you generate radar signatures with gcc? Your comment makes little sense.

arp242 3y ago

That kind of nuance seems implicit, and isn't something that needs to be mentioned in a campaign to get the basic idea across. Remember that this is aimed to people are not really familiar with these sort of ideas at all.

DesiLurker 3y ago

Great, now use that clearly specialized use case to drive public policy for every single common use case. There is such a thing as bad faith arguments. By default everything public paid should be open sourced, if there are cases exception is needed like military then exceptions can be made on application basis.

funcDropShadow 3y ago
GP wrote > The idea is way too simplistic and lacks nuance. and you wrote > There is such a thing as bad faith arguments. Why is it a bad faith argument? GP clearly admitted that no straight forward solution that treats every case the same is going to be good. That is the same you argued for.
- nmilo 3y ago
  Because pointing out that a slogan is simple and in-nuanced is unhelpful, and in bad faith. They're supposed to be simple. Slogans in a democracy are calls to action towards a general idea, and the more complicated they are the less people they can rally. Obviously the nuance will come when lawmakers actually put the thing into writing.

chillbill 3y ago

Yes there is nuance, but public policy is not defined by the extreme. In the vast majority of digital-services-for-public it _should_ be public code as well. The areas where nuance exists can be discussed further. The extreme doesn't define the rule.

asdfman123 3y ago

The government has land that is public as well as land you can’t walk on, and we are able to handle the nuances of that.

RobotToaster 3y ago

>I'd wager you don't want fighter jet or missile guidance software to be open source. If I can't exercise my 2nd amendment right to open source cruise missiles, am I really free? (fnord)