[KLUG Members] Why ADTI's Whitepaper dislikes copyleft/GPL, and why it's not even applicable ...

[Bryan J. Smith]

Okay, now ADTI's viewpoint on the GPL makes sense, sort of.  As someone
who holds a clearance (currently inactive) where I did classified
software development, I'll get to my point.  I mean, take this selection
from the /. post:

  "The federal government's information systems requirements
   intersect countless sensitive operations. The limitless
   potential for holes and back doors in an open source product
   would require unyielding scrutiny by staff that decided to
   use it. For example, if the Federal Aviation Agency were to
   develop an application (derived from open source) which
   controlled 747 flight patterns, a number of issues easily
   become national security questions such as: Would it be prudent
   for the FAA to use software that thousands of unknown programmers
   have intimate knowledge of for something this critical? Could
   the FAA take the chance that these unknown programmers have
   not shared the source code accidentally with the wrong parties?
   Would the FAA's decision to use software in the public domain
   invite computer 'hackers' more readily than proprietary products?"

What ADTI is trying to say is of concern is that software that is to be
used has "privileged knowledge," the software needs to be
non-copyleft/GPL Open Source.  Why?  Because the additions made to the
Open Source need to remain "closed source," since they are
"privaledged."  Makes sense, right?

This is _so_flawed_beyond_belief_.

Rule #1 about copyleft/GPL -- private use of GPL software can be "closed
source" _if_ remains private.  The FAA is not publicly redistributing
the software, so it does not need to share the source code!

The counter to this is, of course, "what if the FAA it wanted to?" 
What???  You just talked about how the software additions were
"privaledged."  Now my understanding to "privaleged" might be little
"rusty," but the government doesn't care if it's been compiled, changed,
wiped, erased, etc... -- any software that is based on privaleged
information, in _whatever_form_ it was in original that differs from
now, is _still_privileged_ -- P-E-R-I-O-D!

So the FAA would NOT be redistributing the software to any other
entities other than for its own, internal purposes as per _privaledged_
information conduct requires.  Copyleft/GPL can be taken internal.  In
fact, some non-copyleft/GPL "Open Source" licenses may NOT be
_as_secure_ as copyleft/GPL _because_ the _require_ any and _all_
modifications to be released.

So under the terms of "privaleged information," I do hereby submit the
copyleft/GPL license is _fully_compatible_ with the "national security"
interests of any modifications that add "privaleged information.

For a company that blindly puts up the "national security" blanket when
questioned, they are in some _serious_need_ of a "re-briefing" on
"national security!"

-- Bryan J. Smith
   American patriot,
   Former software engineer at various American defense contractors

-- 
Many Windows users would rather buy and hunt down dozens of utils
for their Microsoft software than try Freedom Software that not
only includes those same functions inherently, but lacks spyware.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan J. Smith, SmithConcepts, Inc.     mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org
Engineers and IT Professionals       http://www.SmithConcepts.com