SlideShare ist ein Scribd-Unternehmen logo
1 von 45
Open Source Software (OSS or FLOSS), the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), and NASA David A. Wheeler March 29, 2011 This presentation contains the views of the author and does not indicate endorsement by IDA, the U.S. government, or the U.S. Department of Defense. This is not legal advice; variations of specific facts can produce different results.
 
[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Constitution & OSS?
[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]
Outline ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]
What is Open Source Software (OSS)? ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]
Why would governments use or create OSS (value for government)? Reasons follow from the definition ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],In many cases, OSS approaches have the  potential  to increase functionality, quality, and flexibility, while lowering cost and development time
Comparing GOTS, COTS Proprietary, and COTS OSS OSS is not always the right answer... but it’s clear why it’s worth considering (both reusing OSS and creating new/modified OSS)
Myth: OSS is non-commercial. Reality: OSS is commercial/COTS ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]
OSS is clearly commercial by other measures too ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]
Watch your language! ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]
Myth: OSS conflicts with DoDD 8500.1/DoDI 8500.2 DCPD-1 ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]
DoD 2009 OSS policy memo (1) ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]
DoD 2009 OSS policy memo (2) ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]
Quick Aside: Why you should never say “Intellectual Property” again ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]
When can government/contractor release as OSS? ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]
DFARS 252.227-7014 contract clause defaults (June 1995) Condition Can government release as OSS? Can con-tractor? Developed exclusively with government funds. Yes.  The government has unlimited rights (essentially the same rights as a copyright holder).  Per (b)(2)(ii), the 5-year period from mixed funding can be negotiated to a different length of time, and it starts “upon execution of the contract, subcontract, letter contract (or similar contractual instrument), contract modification, or option exercise that required development of the computer software.” Yes.  Copyright is held by the contractor/supplier. Developed by mixed funding (government partly paid for its development) and (sub)contract execution/mod more than 5 years ago. Developed by mixed funding (government partly paid for its development) and (sub)contract execution/mod less than 5 years ago. No.  The government does not have sufficient rights.  Per (b)(2)(ii), the 5-year period from mixed funding can be negotiated to a different length of time; during this time the government only has “government purpose rights.”  If software is developed exclusively at private expense, by default the government only has “restricted rights”; the government should be wary of dependencies on such components.  The government can negotiate for greater rights per (b)(3) and (b)(4). Developed exclusively at private expense.
FAR 52.227-14 contract clause defaults, first produced in contract Condition Can government release as OSS? Can contractor? Government has not granted the contractor the right to assert copyright (default) Yes.  The government normally has unlimited rights (essentially the same rights as a copyright holder) per (b)(1).  In the FAR source code is software, and software is data, so source code is data. No .  The contractor may request permission to assert copyright. Government has granted the contractor the right to assert copyright (e.g., via specific written permission or via clause alternate IV). No.  The government does not have sufficient rights per (c)(1)(iii); it cannot distribute copies to the public.  The government should be wary of granting a request to assert copyright, as it permanently loses many rights to data it paid to develop. Yes .  The contractor may assert copyright.
NASA 1825.227-14 ,[object Object],[object Object]
Most Popular OSS Licenses ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Top ten licenses by project [Freshmeat 2007-07-31]
Industry wants a consolidated short set of OSS licenses ,[object Object],[object Object]
NASA Open  Source Agreement – Stop using it! ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]
Other thoughts on NASA Procedural Requirements 2210.1C (Aug 11, 2010) ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]
Conclusions ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]
Backup charts
Some Common OSS programs ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]
Typical OSS development model Developer Trusted Developer ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Trusted Repository Distributor User Source Code   Bug Reports Improvements (as source code) and evaluation results:  User as Developer “ Stone soup development” Development Community
Myth: OSS always unreliable Reality: OSS often very reliable ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]
Myth: OSS always  or  never more secure ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]
Open design: A security fundamental ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]
Myth: OSS = Open standards. Reality: Different, yet compatible ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]
A few other myths... ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]
Problems with hiding source & vulnerability secrecy ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]
Can “security by obscurity” be a basis for security? ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]
Proprietary advantages? Not really ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]
OSS Security Preconditions (Unintentional vulnerabilities)  ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]
Inserting malicious code & OSS: Basic concepts ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]
Malicious code & OSS ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]
DoD cyber security requires OSS ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]
Preamble to the U.S. Constitution ,[object Object]
Open Technology Development (OTD)
Types of OSS licenses ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]
FLOSS License Slide: Determining License Compatibility Public Domain MIT/X11 BSD-new Apache 2.0 Permissive Weakly Protective Strongly Protective LGPLv2.1 LGPLv2.1+ LGPLv3 (+)  MPL 1.1 GPLv2 GPLv2+ GPLv3 (+)  Affero GPLv3 A -> B means A can be merged into B
Acronyms (1) ‏ BSD: Berkeley Software Distribution COTS: Commercial Off-the-Shelf (either proprietary or OSS)  DFARS: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement DISR: DoD Information Technology Standards and Profile Registry DoD: Department of Defense DoDD: DoD Directive DoDI: DoD Instruction EULA: End-User License Agreement FAR: Federal Acquisition Regulation FLOSS: Free-libre / Open Source Software FSF: Free Software Foundation (fsf.org)  GNU: GNU’s not Unix GOTS: Government Off-The-Shelf (see COTS)  GPL: GNU General Public License HP: Hewlett-Packard Corporation IPR: Intellectual Property Rights; use “Intellectual Rights” instead IT: Information Technology LGPL: GNU Lesser General Public License
Acronyms (2) ‏ MIT: Massachusetts Institute of Technology MPL: Mozilla Public License NDI: Non-developmental item (see COTS)  OMB: Office of Management & Budget OSDL: Open Source Development Labs OSI: Open Source Initiative (opensource.org)  OSJTF: Open Systems Joint Task Force OSS: Open Source Software PD: Public Domain PM: Program Manager RFP: Request for Proposal RH: Red Hat, Inc. ROI: Return on Investment STIG: Security Technical Implementation Guide TCO: Total Cost of Ownership U.S.: United States USC: U.S. Code V&V: Verification & Validation Trademarks belong to the trademark holder.

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie Open Source Software (OSS) Use by US Government Agencies Discussed in 40-Character Title

Oss and foss
Oss and fossOss and foss
Oss and fossKumar
 
Open Source Software (OSS/FLOSS) and Security
Open Source Software (OSS/FLOSS) and SecurityOpen Source Software (OSS/FLOSS) and Security
Open Source Software (OSS/FLOSS) and SecurityJoshua L. Davis
 
Open source software in government challenges and opportunities
Open source software in government challenges and opportunitiesOpen source software in government challenges and opportunities
Open source software in government challenges and opportunitiesLuke Fretwell
 
Legal interoperability: glocal perspective (LAPSI, Torino)
Legal interoperability: glocal perspective (LAPSI, Torino)Legal interoperability: glocal perspective (LAPSI, Torino)
Legal interoperability: glocal perspective (LAPSI, Torino)Federico Morando
 
香港六合彩
香港六合彩香港六合彩
香港六合彩shujia
 
FOSS Intro
FOSS IntroFOSS Intro
FOSS Introosswatch
 
Free/Open Source Software
Free/Open Source SoftwareFree/Open Source Software
Free/Open Source SoftwareAngelo Corsaro
 
Business and Sustainability Models Around FOSS (1 of 2)
Business and Sustainability Models Around FOSS (1 of 2)Business and Sustainability Models Around FOSS (1 of 2)
Business and Sustainability Models Around FOSS (1 of 2)Rowan Wilson
 
Barcamp: Open Source and Security
Barcamp: Open Source and SecurityBarcamp: Open Source and Security
Barcamp: Open Source and SecurityJoshua L. Davis
 
Introduction To Open Source Licensing
Introduction To Open Source LicensingIntroduction To Open Source Licensing
Introduction To Open Source LicensingMark Radcliffe
 
LAPSI: legal interoperability updated
LAPSI: legal interoperability updatedLAPSI: legal interoperability updated
LAPSI: legal interoperability updatedFederico Morando
 
Dangerous Liaisons - Software Combinations as Derivative Works?
Dangerous Liaisons - Software Combinations as Derivative Works?Dangerous Liaisons - Software Combinations as Derivative Works?
Dangerous Liaisons - Software Combinations as Derivative Works?Tal Lavian Ph.D.
 
FOSDEM 2012 Legal Devroom: ⊂ (FLOSS legal/policy ∩ CC [4.0])
FOSDEM 2012 Legal Devroom: ⊂ (FLOSS legal/policy ∩ CC [4.0])FOSDEM 2012 Legal Devroom: ⊂ (FLOSS legal/policy ∩ CC [4.0])
FOSDEM 2012 Legal Devroom: ⊂ (FLOSS legal/policy ∩ CC [4.0])Mike Linksvayer
 
Open source software licenses
Open source software licensesOpen source software licenses
Open source software licensesDrexelELC
 
Economics of Open Source Software
Economics of Open Source SoftwareEconomics of Open Source Software
Economics of Open Source SoftwareRay Toal
 
Open Source Hardware and Developments in Creative Commons Licenses, Compatibi...
Open Source Hardware and Developments in Creative Commons Licenses, Compatibi...Open Source Hardware and Developments in Creative Commons Licenses, Compatibi...
Open Source Hardware and Developments in Creative Commons Licenses, Compatibi...Mike Linksvayer
 
Linked Heritage - Legal Interoperability
Linked Heritage - Legal InteroperabilityLinked Heritage - Legal Interoperability
Linked Heritage - Legal InteroperabilityFederico Morando
 

Ähnlich wie Open Source Software (OSS) Use by US Government Agencies Discussed in 40-Character Title (20)

Oss and foss
Oss and fossOss and foss
Oss and foss
 
Open Source Software (OSS/FLOSS) and Security
Open Source Software (OSS/FLOSS) and SecurityOpen Source Software (OSS/FLOSS) and Security
Open Source Software (OSS/FLOSS) and Security
 
Oss healthcare
Oss healthcareOss healthcare
Oss healthcare
 
Open source software in government challenges and opportunities
Open source software in government challenges and opportunitiesOpen source software in government challenges and opportunities
Open source software in government challenges and opportunities
 
Legal interoperability: glocal perspective (LAPSI, Torino)
Legal interoperability: glocal perspective (LAPSI, Torino)Legal interoperability: glocal perspective (LAPSI, Torino)
Legal interoperability: glocal perspective (LAPSI, Torino)
 
香港六合彩
香港六合彩香港六合彩
香港六合彩
 
FOSS Intro
FOSS IntroFOSS Intro
FOSS Intro
 
Free/Open Source Software
Free/Open Source SoftwareFree/Open Source Software
Free/Open Source Software
 
Business and Sustainability Models Around FOSS (1 of 2)
Business and Sustainability Models Around FOSS (1 of 2)Business and Sustainability Models Around FOSS (1 of 2)
Business and Sustainability Models Around FOSS (1 of 2)
 
1 Open Source Business
1 Open Source Business1 Open Source Business
1 Open Source Business
 
Barcamp: Open Source and Security
Barcamp: Open Source and SecurityBarcamp: Open Source and Security
Barcamp: Open Source and Security
 
Introduction To Open Source Licensing
Introduction To Open Source LicensingIntroduction To Open Source Licensing
Introduction To Open Source Licensing
 
LAPSI: legal interoperability updated
LAPSI: legal interoperability updatedLAPSI: legal interoperability updated
LAPSI: legal interoperability updated
 
Dangerous Liaisons - Software Combinations as Derivative Works?
Dangerous Liaisons - Software Combinations as Derivative Works?Dangerous Liaisons - Software Combinations as Derivative Works?
Dangerous Liaisons - Software Combinations as Derivative Works?
 
FOSDEM 2012 Legal Devroom: ⊂ (FLOSS legal/policy ∩ CC [4.0])
FOSDEM 2012 Legal Devroom: ⊂ (FLOSS legal/policy ∩ CC [4.0])FOSDEM 2012 Legal Devroom: ⊂ (FLOSS legal/policy ∩ CC [4.0])
FOSDEM 2012 Legal Devroom: ⊂ (FLOSS legal/policy ∩ CC [4.0])
 
Open source software licenses
Open source software licensesOpen source software licenses
Open source software licenses
 
Mis full
Mis fullMis full
Mis full
 
Economics of Open Source Software
Economics of Open Source SoftwareEconomics of Open Source Software
Economics of Open Source Software
 
Open Source Hardware and Developments in Creative Commons Licenses, Compatibi...
Open Source Hardware and Developments in Creative Commons Licenses, Compatibi...Open Source Hardware and Developments in Creative Commons Licenses, Compatibi...
Open Source Hardware and Developments in Creative Commons Licenses, Compatibi...
 
Linked Heritage - Legal Interoperability
Linked Heritage - Legal InteroperabilityLinked Heritage - Legal Interoperability
Linked Heritage - Legal Interoperability
 

Mehr von NASA Open Government Initiative

Mehr von NASA Open Government Initiative (8)

Nasa at i_co_p_aug2011 2
Nasa at i_co_p_aug2011 2Nasa at i_co_p_aug2011 2
Nasa at i_co_p_aug2011 2
 
2011 NASA Open Source Summit - Pascal Finette
2011 NASA Open Source Summit - Pascal Finette2011 NASA Open Source Summit - Pascal Finette
2011 NASA Open Source Summit - Pascal Finette
 
2011 NASA Open Source Summit - Chris DiBona
2011 NASA Open Source Summit - Chris DiBona2011 NASA Open Source Summit - Chris DiBona
2011 NASA Open Source Summit - Chris DiBona
 
2011 NASA Open Source Summit - Brian Stevens
2011 NASA Open Source Summit - Brian Stevens2011 NASA Open Source Summit - Brian Stevens
2011 NASA Open Source Summit - Brian Stevens
 
2011 NASA Open Source Summit - Terry Fong
2011 NASA Open Source Summit - Terry Fong2011 NASA Open Source Summit - Terry Fong
2011 NASA Open Source Summit - Terry Fong
 
2011 NASA Open Source Summit - Chris Mattmann
2011 NASA Open Source Summit - Chris Mattmann2011 NASA Open Source Summit - Chris Mattmann
2011 NASA Open Source Summit - Chris Mattmann
 
2011 NASA Open Source Summit - Chris Wanstrath
2011 NASA Open Source Summit - Chris Wanstrath2011 NASA Open Source Summit - Chris Wanstrath
2011 NASA Open Source Summit - Chris Wanstrath
 
2011 NASA Open Source Summit - Bob Sutor
2011 NASA Open Source Summit - Bob Sutor2011 NASA Open Source Summit - Bob Sutor
2011 NASA Open Source Summit - Bob Sutor
 

Open Source Software (OSS) Use by US Government Agencies Discussed in 40-Character Title

  • 1. Open Source Software (OSS or FLOSS), the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), and NASA David A. Wheeler March 29, 2011 This presentation contains the views of the author and does not indicate endorsement by IDA, the U.S. government, or the U.S. Department of Defense. This is not legal advice; variations of specific facts can produce different results.
  • 2.  
  • 3.
  • 4.
  • 5.
  • 6.
  • 7.
  • 8. Comparing GOTS, COTS Proprietary, and COTS OSS OSS is not always the right answer... but it’s clear why it’s worth considering (both reusing OSS and creating new/modified OSS)
  • 9.
  • 10.
  • 11.
  • 12.
  • 13.
  • 14.
  • 15.
  • 16.
  • 17. DFARS 252.227-7014 contract clause defaults (June 1995) Condition Can government release as OSS? Can con-tractor? Developed exclusively with government funds. Yes. The government has unlimited rights (essentially the same rights as a copyright holder). Per (b)(2)(ii), the 5-year period from mixed funding can be negotiated to a different length of time, and it starts “upon execution of the contract, subcontract, letter contract (or similar contractual instrument), contract modification, or option exercise that required development of the computer software.” Yes. Copyright is held by the contractor/supplier. Developed by mixed funding (government partly paid for its development) and (sub)contract execution/mod more than 5 years ago. Developed by mixed funding (government partly paid for its development) and (sub)contract execution/mod less than 5 years ago. No. The government does not have sufficient rights. Per (b)(2)(ii), the 5-year period from mixed funding can be negotiated to a different length of time; during this time the government only has “government purpose rights.” If software is developed exclusively at private expense, by default the government only has “restricted rights”; the government should be wary of dependencies on such components. The government can negotiate for greater rights per (b)(3) and (b)(4). Developed exclusively at private expense.
  • 18. FAR 52.227-14 contract clause defaults, first produced in contract Condition Can government release as OSS? Can contractor? Government has not granted the contractor the right to assert copyright (default) Yes. The government normally has unlimited rights (essentially the same rights as a copyright holder) per (b)(1). In the FAR source code is software, and software is data, so source code is data. No . The contractor may request permission to assert copyright. Government has granted the contractor the right to assert copyright (e.g., via specific written permission or via clause alternate IV). No. The government does not have sufficient rights per (c)(1)(iii); it cannot distribute copies to the public. The government should be wary of granting a request to assert copyright, as it permanently loses many rights to data it paid to develop. Yes . The contractor may assert copyright.
  • 19.
  • 20.
  • 21.
  • 22.
  • 23.
  • 24.
  • 26.
  • 27.
  • 28.
  • 29.
  • 30.
  • 31.
  • 32.
  • 33.
  • 34.
  • 35.
  • 36.
  • 37.
  • 38.
  • 39.
  • 40.
  • 42.
  • 43. FLOSS License Slide: Determining License Compatibility Public Domain MIT/X11 BSD-new Apache 2.0 Permissive Weakly Protective Strongly Protective LGPLv2.1 LGPLv2.1+ LGPLv3 (+) MPL 1.1 GPLv2 GPLv2+ GPLv3 (+) Affero GPLv3 A -> B means A can be merged into B
  • 44. Acronyms (1) ‏ BSD: Berkeley Software Distribution COTS: Commercial Off-the-Shelf (either proprietary or OSS) DFARS: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement DISR: DoD Information Technology Standards and Profile Registry DoD: Department of Defense DoDD: DoD Directive DoDI: DoD Instruction EULA: End-User License Agreement FAR: Federal Acquisition Regulation FLOSS: Free-libre / Open Source Software FSF: Free Software Foundation (fsf.org) GNU: GNU’s not Unix GOTS: Government Off-The-Shelf (see COTS) GPL: GNU General Public License HP: Hewlett-Packard Corporation IPR: Intellectual Property Rights; use “Intellectual Rights” instead IT: Information Technology LGPL: GNU Lesser General Public License
  • 45. Acronyms (2) ‏ MIT: Massachusetts Institute of Technology MPL: Mozilla Public License NDI: Non-developmental item (see COTS) OMB: Office of Management & Budget OSDL: Open Source Development Labs OSI: Open Source Initiative (opensource.org) OSJTF: Open Systems Joint Task Force OSS: Open Source Software PD: Public Domain PM: Program Manager RFP: Request for Proposal RH: Red Hat, Inc. ROI: Return on Investment STIG: Security Technical Implementation Guide TCO: Total Cost of Ownership U.S.: United States USC: U.S. Code V&V: Verification & Validation Trademarks belong to the trademark holder.

Hinweis der Redaktion

  1. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
  2. “ SFU” is “Services for Unix”, nee Interix (the relationship is more complex; see their sites for more information). Parts of SFU are covered by the GPL (see “Customizing Microsoft Windows Services for UNIX Installation”). Microsoft has historically railed against the GPL, as being a license that will destroy the software industry, but this claim is obvious nonsense – it was at the same time selling GPL’ed software, and it is still competing with commercial companies whose products are based on GPL software (e.g., Linux kernel). Nowadays, Microsoft is actively courting OSS developers through Codeplex. The 37K/38K numbers for Linux are from 2004.
  3. The set of laws governing software are typically called “intellectual property rights” laws, but this term is very misleading. Knoweldge - including software - is really nothing like traditinoal property. If I take your car, you don’t have the car; but if I copy software, you still have the software. Using terms like “intellectual property rights” can make people unable to see what is different about software, and limits their thinking. I prefer the term “intellectual rights”, because now you can focus on the rights of each party, instead of simply who is the “owner”.
  4. http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/95091/HP_exec_calls_for_fewer_open_source_licenses
  5. Linux Foundation did Fedora 9 study.
  6. The list of companies here is not an endorsement of any particular company, and is certainly not exclusive. The point here is simply that if you want commercial support for open source software, there are a lot of companies who will be happy to provide commercial support.
  7. For more on the Linux kernel attack of 2003, see: http://www.linux.com/feature/32539 http://web.archive.org/web/20051122074510/kerneltrap.org/node/1584 The attack on SourceForge and Apache in 2001 (by “Fluffy Bunny”): http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jul2001/tc20010726_509.htm http://www.securityfocus.com/news/215 note that this was detected by the OSS community, and that they were able to recover and verify the source code (due to distributed development) ‏ The break-in on Debian in 2003, including their verification of their repository: http://www.debian.org/News/2003/20031202
  8. Of the various laws, the one that we’ll focus on is copyright law.