

US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet - stfu
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/08/us_navy_linux_drones/

======
tantalor

      The US government can directly combine GPL and 
      proprietary/classified software into a single program 
      arbitrarily, as long as the result is never conveyed 
      outside the U.S. government
    

Just to be clear, this is true for any organization using GPL materials,
correct?

~~~
pmorici
Yes, though, as I understand it in this case the government is the user _and_
the developer where as a lot of large companies avoid sharing changes by
offering their software as a web service (ie: they don't have to distribute
the binary) something which I believe changes to the GPL in v3 were supposed
to address.

~~~
zerohp
Even if the government was buying it from Raytheon, this would only mean that
the government must receive a copy of the source code under the GPL. It does
not mean the software must be distributed freely to everyone.

As I understand it.

~~~
ams6110
That's my understanding as well. If you distribute the software, you must
distribute the source upon request. You're under no obligation to distribute
something you develop for your own use, however.

------
niels_olson
Now if only I could get Linux on my Navy desktop, instead of winXP under NMCI.
I have all but fired my issued desktop and do as much as possible on my iPad
and MacBook.

~~~
michaelcampbell
Is virtualbox (or some other VM) not an option for you?

------
jen_h
First of all, how in the world are they "buying" Linux from Raytheon? They're
apparently buying 28M of "services" from Raytheon, not "Linux."

Second of all, what's up with all the stuff that one would think should be
classified info showing up all over the media lately?

~~~
PKop
Political cheer-leading in an election year.

[http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/08/obama-im-offended-
that...](http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/08/obama-im-offended-that-my-
hyperpolitical-administration-is-being-accused-of-leaking-classified-info-for-
electoral-gain/)

------
koala_advert
Guess they went with Redhat then?

------
mtgx
They were controlling drones...with Windows XP? Oh my. Don't tell me they were
logging through IE6, too.

~~~
petercooper
Had some fun on a Virgin Atlantic flight the other day. Entertainment system
wasn't working and got to watch an attendant rebooting into Windows 98 over
and over.. turns out the reason it takes 30+ minutes for the system to
"reboot" is because ScanDisk is forced to run on every boot.

------
voodoochilo
asked rms few months ago if it wouldn't make sense to change the gpl in the
direction of "no military use allowed". he replied that would destroy the
"free software philosophy". i disagree. hate the idea that human beings are
killed with the help of gnu/linux and/or free software.

~~~
why-el
I have to agree with rms here. No _X_ allowed is inherently anti-free
software. In cases like this one has to think long term, as in how freer
software can lead to freer societies, i.e. societies that escape government
coercion. That itself I think will lead to a significant decrease in military
activity because free uncoerced citizens can stop their governments from
engaging in such self-destructive acts.

~~~
voodoochilo
i know this all-or-nothing-argument and yes it is correct. it's about purity
of the idea of free software, but killing humans is not pure. so how can the
idea stay pure therefore?

and what do i tell my grandchildren if the ask me one day: "grandpa, why
exactly did you write that big while-switch-statement which killed 6.000.000
people in 2016?"

~~~
joshAg
"I didn't write it so that 6 million people would be killed, nor did i write
it for those people to use specifically. I wrote it to make people's lives
easier and to advance human knowledge. I wrote it to create a tool that other
could use. Like how people use a hammer. And just like a hammer, while most
people used it how it was intended, some people used it to kill other people
or to destroy things. Despite that, though, we don't ban hammers and stop
making them.

Yes, some people used my code badly, and did horrible things with it, but
others used it in spaceships and self driving cars. Ultimately what I made was
a tool, and once something like code or an idea or a design is given to the
world and the world sees how good it is, there is no way to restrict who uses
it or how they use it.

My code is not inherently evil, nor is it inherently good. It just is. Others
can use it to do good or to do bad, but at the end of the day, they are just
using a tool to multiply the effects of their actions."

~~~
voodoochilo
well, i sleept on that and came to the point that this problem is similar to
the knife-problem: you can use a knife to butter your bread or to cut someone
into little pieces - but that's not the knife's fault or the fault of the guy
who made the knife or the guy who invented the concept of the knife.

therefore rms and you other smart bastards;) were right - i was wrong.

