Hacker News Reader

Comment by brudgers | Hacker News Reader

[IANAL] The Navy probably has a legal opinion similar to this one:

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA389801&Locati...

claiming that their use of copyright protected material for national security purposes constitutes fair use.

You're not getting it: This isn't some special military privilege. You or I could do the exact same thing. Anyone can take GPL'ed code, modify it, and keep the changes to themselves.

I think he's implying that if there was a question about it being shared with other organizations in the government (or other governments or defense contractors), they would use that to justify not re-releasing the code.

I get it. However, the scenario you are envisioning is not really consistent with how the US DoD operates.

It's not usually some E-4 sitting at a terminal writing the software that runs sophisticated modern weapons systems.

Instead it is a civilian contractor who is writing the code and then selling the software along with the system to the US military, i.e. the software is being distributed for money.

The GPL requires you provide the source code of the modified application to anyone you distribute it to. Most military projects already require source code from their contractors. Thus, most contractors already comply with the terms of the GPL.

Besides, if you're distributing the application to anyone besides the DoD you're going to have bigger problems than GPL license compliance.

If Alice takes a GPL program, modifies it, and sells it to Bob, nobody but Bob can demand Alice share the source. If Bob does nothing, nobody but Alice ever sees the source.

Bob is the Navy. Alice is the contractor.

Alternately, Bob is me and Alice is you.

Either way, the GPL allows it.

Sure, the GPL allows it, but the GPL doesnt allow Bob to dictate what Alice does with the source once she has it (GPL v2, term #4). If she decides to distribute it, his recourse is to not do further business with Alice. That could be enough, but if Alice sees sufficient short-term benefit, that may be a risk she is willing to take.

Don't forget not doing further business is not the only recourse someone who builds missiles, nukes, fighters and bombers has.

In fact, considering all possible outcomes, stopping business is the most desirable one.

In other words, the people you sell it to are entitled to the source, nothing more.

The general public, given they are not customers, are not involved.

s/sell/give/

And those rights are automatically passed on -- if Alice sells the product to Bob and he resells it to Carol and she compiles it and gives the binary away to Doug, Doug can call Alice and demand the source.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com