[NTLUG:Discuss] Gov funded GPL'd code

[Rick Cook]

On Friday 01 June 2001 17:51, Cameron wrote:
>
> I think the important issue here is his statement about government
> funded, GPL'd projects.  What do you guys think about this?
>
> IMNSHO, I agree with Ballmer on principle (*gasp*).  Government funded
> software should be in the Public Domain, ie. there are absolutely no
> restrictions on it's use.  If the government funded GPL'd projects, the
> only people (ie. citizens) that could use the source code would be
> people willing to GPL their derivative works.  Hmm...here's a short list

If the government has a need for some functionality that extends an already 
GPL'd product, I personally think that it is very reasonable for the 
government to fund the development of that extension. One such product is 
gnat, the Ada compiler front end to the gcc compiler suite. Obviously, if the 
product starts as GPL'd source, any development the government funds would 
also produce GPL'd source.

The _vast_ majority of US Government funded software development is neither 
Public Domain or GPL'd. Most of it is closely held US Government/Development 
Contractor Intellectual Property. Not only is the public prohibited from 
seeing the source, so is most of the government and most of the development 
contractor's competitors.

>
> The point is that the US government should fund work that is accessible
> to *everyone*, not just to people that can work with the GPL.
>

I disagree with this statement, the US government should fund work for 
products that are _necessary_ for the US government to perform its functions 
of controlling interstate commerce, providing for the common defense, and 
making and enforcing treaties with other governments (as my strict 
constitutionalist political bias leaks out). If, in the course of doing this, 
a product of general use happened to appear, it might be reasonable for it to 
put that product in the public domain. There are even examples of this 
happening (Arpanet->MILnet->Internet).

Most of the development funding the US government provides does not go toward 
products that would be of any value to the vast majority of the citizenry of 
our country. If it was, the US government would be overstepping its role and 
_very inefficiently_ spending your money.

>
> I'd like to hear from some of you who have knowledge of what and how the
> government funds certain projects.  I'm sure there are many software
> packages that were developed with funding from the US government that
> are now proprietary (ie. within a university).  But that's only a hunch.
>

Or proprietary within the development contractor. Some of the big software 
development projects the government has funded are things like the Air 
Traffic Control system, the mammoth system that supports the IRS in auditing 
your tax returns, Postal distribution systems, etc. In most cases, as I 
stated earlier, only the government and (maybe) the developing contractor 
have any ongoing rights to that software. Not only is the code not Public 
Domain, it is usually locked up tight with very limited access.

> Am I failing to make the distinction between government funded and
> government developed software?  I'm not very clueful how much funding
> the government does within our educational system.

Except for leaving out any rights that might have gone to the developing 
contractor, government developed software is mostly "just like" government 
funded software.


Rick
-- 
rcook at ntlug.org
rcook at hex.net