Hacker News Reader

Comment by derrida | Hacker News Reader

Sweet, so all that GNU code they are modifying, we can request a copy of the source code. (Most Linux code is GNU licensed, see here https://www.ohloh.net/p/debian/analyses/latest)

View on HN

No. Because they won't be distributing it to you, you will not be able to request the source. They will be under no obligation to release anything.

The only thing they have to watch out for is code that is explicitly licensed such that the military can't use it, or the "don't be evil" licenses... and I wouldn't be surprised they've got some sort of immunity against that buried in the law somewhere. Even if they don't, this doesn't seem to be that much code.

I wouldn't expect to see a line of code from them come back to the community... not because they're unwilling individually, but because I would imagine the process of getting it legally safe to release publicly just won't be worth it.

Just because it's fun, this was posted a few weeks ago on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4099985

Yes I can't see any potential code enhancement made to Linux by the DOD/Navy ever making it back out in 'the wild'. That said it certainly helps cement Linux's credibility in areas such as this. Calling it 'single biggest win' though, ehh?

So you think the Navy (and their contractors) will be maintaining their own fork of linux and continually port changes over from mainline linux into their fork? I doubt they are that ambitious/stupid. It'll be much much easier for them to get whatever changes they make accepted into the mainline and maintained as 1st class pieces of the kernel.

I expect them to "maintain their own fork of Linux" in exactly the same way they "maintained their own fork of Windows". It seems very likely they're just porting over pure userspace-stuff. If Windows worked for them at all I doubt kernel-space stuff is necessary.

Well, if the Taliban capture a drone, would they be entitled to a copy of the license under the purposes of the GPL? :)

Yes, I forgot about that clause. What do you think would happen when the US Navy gave code to the US Airforce. Would that constitute 'distribution'? US --> Allied govt? Soldier --> soldier?

I wonder if this means that this sort of hardware won't be resold or distributed by the OEM to other nations. I can't imagine that they'd want Saudi Arabia to have the source code to these things.

Obviously they will not be releasing the entire source but it is certainly possible that DoD/Navy/Gov engineers could contribute certain modules, pieces, or resources back to the community.

I don't know about the Navy, but NSA seems to be more giving with their Security Enhanced Android source code:

http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/NSA-releases-secu...

That's a case where they see it as worth it, and the entire purpose of the project was to contribute back. Part of the NSA's mission isn't just to hack everybody else, but to help defend, as well. At least some part of the agency actually does seem a bit dedicated to that task, despite my natural cynicism causing me to be a bit surprised each time I see it.

Only they first ship you a copy of binary or a piece of hardware running that binary. As long as it's all for in house use, you have no right to the source code.

Only if they distribute it.

What people don't often realize is that GPL (both v2 and v3) has a "trigger" condition, where the GPL reciprocity applies only with physical distribution of the code.

As an end-user, it's perfectly fine to modify GPL code and keep the changes private.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com