Where are the military applications?
Gene Montgomery
dearth of applications available in the public domain suitable for use
by military folks.
My interest in Linux spurs me to post this query, and I think this is
possibly the most appropriate newsgroup.
The kinds of applications which (it seems to me) would be very useful
for application in the military setting range from military data link
protocols (e.g., Tadil-A, Tadil-B, Tadil-J, United States Message Text
Formats), object tracking applications (such as radar-source kinematic
trackers and correlators), all the way to modern situation display user
interfaces wherein symbols, lines, charts/maps, and 3-space
visualizations are presented in conjunction with tabular "totes" of
coordinated databased information. There are literally hundreds of
other application areas which also apply.
I know that previously, cloaked under security provisions, and with the
"proprietary" stamp on every page, these software applications have been
zealously guarded. But, it strikes me as funny that in the new
development environment espoused by U.S. and other military procurement
agencies (that is: COTS, Open Systems, Open Source, Standards-based,
etc.), there virtually no true open source that I can find which
directly supports the applications mentioned above.
Am I missing something? Is there a dot-org which is developing fun
things like Single Integrated Air Picture uis and I just haven't heard
of it? Hmmmm?
Gene Montgomery
Rick Walker
: dearth of applications available in the public domain suitable for use
: by military folks.
: The kinds of applications which (it seems to me) would be very useful
: for application in the military setting range from military data link
: protocols (e.g., Tadil-A, Tadil-B, Tadil-J, United States Message Text
: Formats), object tracking applications (such as radar-source kinematic
: trackers and correlators), all the way to modern situation display user
: interfaces wherein symbols, lines, charts/maps, and 3-space...
Open Source is generally developed by users for applications that are of
interest to the people doing the development. Why would I work on a
battle control system? It is completely irrelevant to my day to day
computer experience.
I think of Open Source as a way to make warfare obsolete. This occurs
by encouraging non-proprietary cooperation and by encouraging the
interdependent sharing of resources, culture and code.
The philosophical underpinning for this is supported by game theory (to
name just one example). It can be shown that a cooperative framework
may reduce the short term gain of a selfish participant, but over the
long run the entire system is so enriched, more than making up for the
loss. Each player gains more by deferring short-term gain and
cooperating in a thriving system than by taking the short-term gain and
degrading the "environment".
War is a heavy tax that we pay to "protect" ourselves from "others". If
we have few secrets, are critically interdependent, and share our means
of livelihood, then the concept of "other" no longer makes any real
sense.
What good is a self defense system if it is killing you?
In the cooperative world-view, the need for war becomes less and less.
Over time, the cooperative world-view out-competes the less efficient
dominator paradigm.
This has been plausible demonstrated by cellular automaton simulations,
game theory, and archeological reconstructions of civilizations that
have operated in both modes.
So, to cut to the chase, I don't think you'll find any battle
management software written by the typical Open Source contributor.
Those that want to play the dominator game will have to make their own
tools for doing so. Over time, they may find that less and less people
want to play with them.
--
Rick Walker
The Contact
I must comply with Rick Walker's POV.
I'm just typing aloud here, but I think that - because of your
background as Military Application Developer (MAD :-) - you ought to
look in the gamer-world (specific the RTS-section). With some adjustment
it may be possible to convert their code to military app's.
--
The Contact
"Knowing everything is impossible. Trying to is not."
[- TheCo...@MailAndNews.com -]
Frank V. Castellucci
>
> As a long-time developer of military applications, I am amazed by the
> dearth of applications available in the public domain suitable for use
> by military folks.
>
> possibly the most appropriate newsgroup.
>
> for application in the military setting range from military data link
> protocols (e.g., Tadil-A, Tadil-B, Tadil-J, United States Message Text
> Formats), object tracking applications (such as radar-source kinematic
> trackers and correlators), all the way to modern situation display user
> visualizations are presented in conjunction with tabular "totes" of
> coordinated databased information. There are literally hundreds of
> other application areas which also apply.
>
> I know that previously, cloaked under security provisions, and with the
> "proprietary" stamp on every page, these software applications have been
> zealously guarded. But, it strikes me as funny that in the new
> development environment espoused by U.S. and other military procurement
> agencies (that is: COTS, Open Systems, Open Source, Standards-based,
> etc.), there virtually no true open source that I can find which
> directly supports the applications mentioned above.
>
> Am I missing something? Is there a dot-org which is developing fun
> things like Single Integrated Air Picture uis and I just haven't heard
> of it? Hmmmm?
>
> Gene Montgomery
No Gene, you are correct. There is no specific development work for
military applications that I have seen. If you feel it is a good time to
start them, it's an open door. That is your choice, and that is what it
is all about.
--
Frank V. Castellucci
http://corelinux.sourceforge.net
OOA/OOD/C++ Standards and Guidelines for Linux
http://PythPat.sourceforge.net
Pythons Pattern Package
Doug Rickard
Rick Walker <wal...@opus.hpl.hp.com> wrote in message
news:8lagqv$705$1...@hplms2.hpl.hp.com...
> : As a long-time developer of military applications, I am amazed by the
> : dearth of applications available in the public domain suitable for use
> : by military folks.
>
> : for application in the military setting range from military data link
> : protocols (e.g., Tadil-A, Tadil-B, Tadil-J, United States Message Text
> : Formats), object tracking applications (such as radar-source kinematic
> : trackers and correlators), all the way to modern situation display user
> Rick Walker
I agree with Rick entirely. As one who in professional life often had to
develop military applications, I enjoy the anarchistic view of the Open
Source community. I make a particular point in the documantation of all
software I write privately that "this software is NOT for use by military
organisations". In fact, just to enforce the point, I often include hidden
viruses that are only activated if they find that they are being run on a
machine in known military domains. None of my private software development
is intended to aid and abet militarism. I would encourage all other
programmers who believe in the ethos of "Open source" to similarly make
their software unsuitable for military use.
Doug.
Pete Zaitcev
> dearth of applications available in the public domain suitable for use
> by military folks.
There is a very interesting GPLed microkernel developed by AF
folks. Unfortunately, I had only a very brief look at it.
Work is being done, just not as quickly.
Russian DoD contractors did a port of Linux/mips to "Baget-M"
which was their "unified platform", roughly R3000 equivalent
made entirely from domestic components. The Linux port they used
was somehow screened against possible bugs planted by the U.S.
(please, no debate... I have read the Thompson speech too).
Their open source liason is Gleb Raiko, I used to work with
him before on C&C platforms.
--Pete
cLIeNUX user
The GRASS civil engineering package is a very interesting military-ish
app, and apparently it's been an open source thing for ages, primarily by
the Corps of Engineers.
Rick Hohensee
ri...@clienux.com
Jan Panteltje
>> : dearth of applications available in the public domain suitable for use
>> : by military folks.
>>
I think open source INCLUDES the possiblity of mil apps
AS LONG as they comply with the GPL, so also publish the source.
But mils will want to rewrite things (even alone for security), and then not
publish that.
So you would simply never know.
Neither do you know algorithms taken from GPL programs and used by MS apps
programmers cause you will never see the source.
Jan
Frank V. Castellucci
include.
What crap.
To NOT release military applications under an OSS license is anarchistic
only to those that have written them under different.
John Hasler
> I enjoy the anarchistic view of the Open Source community. I make a
> particular point in the documantation of all software I write privately
> that "this software is NOT for use by military organisations".
Then you are not writing free software.
> I often include hidden viruses that are only activated if they find that
> they are being run on a machine in known military domains.
Thanks for warning me. I'll be careful never to run any of your software
(not there was any great liklihood that I would). I don't do anything that
I consider "military", but I can't be certain what you mean by "known
military domains", nor am I willing to trust any software written by
someone who brags about putting trojans in his programs.
> I would encourage all other programmers who believe in the ethos of "Open
> source" to similarly make their software unsuitable for military use.
I encourage all programmers to keep their politics out of their code.
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
John Hasler
> The GRASS civil engineering package is a very interesting military-ish
Any software developed by US government employees on government time is
free. US copyright law forbids the government to enforce its copyrights.
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
Erik Max Francis
> Doug writes:
>
> > I often include hidden viruses that are only activated if they find
> > that
> > they are being run on a machine in known military domains.
>
> Thanks for warning me. I'll be careful never to run any of your
> software
> (not there was any great liklihood that I would). I don't do anything
> that
> I consider "military", but I can't be certain what you mean by "known
> military domains", nor am I willing to trust any software written by
> someone who brags about putting trojans in his programs.
Indeed. I hope any employers or potential employers were watching, too.
Putting undocumented viruses, timebombs, or backdoors into software can
easily get you fired. What's more disturbing is not that he'd do such a
thing, but brag about it as if it were something to be proud of. Quite
the contrary, I'd say.
Besides, the idea doesn't make much sense. We're talking about open
source software here, so anyone can get the source. If they have the
source, then they can disable the viruses/timebombs/backdoors. Doesn't
seem like a particularly effective way to dictate who can and who can't
use your software.
--
Erik Max Francis / m...@alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, US / 37 20 N 121 53 W / ICQ16063900 / &tSftDotIotE
/ \ Freedom is a road seldom travelled by the multitudes
\__/ Public Enemy
Polly Wanna Cracka? / http://www.pollywannacracka.com/
The Internet resource for interracial relationships.
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> Rick Hohensee writes:
>> The GRASS civil engineering package is a very interesting military-ish
>> app, and apparently it's been an open source thing for ages,...
> Any software developed by US government employees on government time is
> free. US copyright law forbids the government to enforce its copyrights.
It might be "free" but is it "Free"?
Do they release all their source code to the public?
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| "ARSE! GERLS!! DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!" |
| in | "THAT WOULD BE AN ECUMENICAL MATTER!...FECK!!!! |
| Computer Science | - Father Jack in "Father Ted" |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Hasler
> It might be "free" but is it "Free"?
It's "Free" in that there are no restrictions on what you can do with it.
> Do they release all their source code to the public?
They are not required to release anything (try to get ahold of BRLCAD, for
example). It's just that if you do get ahold of it, you can do with it as
you wish.
cLIeNUX user
>Doug writes:
GRASS is open source. Megagobs of it. Pretty stuff too. I first saw it in
Slackware in the scientific dir.
To the guy with the remark about "all US gov't software is free", is there
a defined entry point into that world? The part that won't raise any
eyebrows, that is.
Rick Hohensee
ri...@clienux.com
John Hasler
> To the guy with the remark about "all US gov't software is free",...
All software authored by US government employees on government time is
free, in that the government may not use the US copyright law to enforce
its copyright.
> ...is there a defined entry point into that world?
Not that I know of. NTIS should distribute it, but they don't.
Robert Brady
> Rick Hohensee writes:
>> The GRASS civil engineering package is a very interesting military-ish
>> app, and apparently it's been an open source thing for ages,...
> Any software developed by US government employees on government time is
> free. US copyright law forbids the government to enforce its copyrights.
Does it even forbid the US Government from enforcing its copyrights in other
jurisdictions?
--
Robert
Gene Montgomery
>
> Andrew Halliwell writes:
> > It might be "free" but is it "Free"?
>
> It's "Free" in that there are no restrictions on what you can do with it.
>
> > Do they release all their source code to the public?
>
> They are not required to release anything (try to get ahold of BRLCAD, for
> example). It's just that if you do get ahold of it, you can do with it as
> you wish.
GRASS is open source software. I have been using it in a limited way
since 1993, and find it to be good software. GRASS was not particularly
useful for my purposes (realtime phosphor pixels), since the Corps of
Engineers used it to produce paper maps/charts. There was a period of
low activity, followed by the most recent change of "ownership". The
Corps has turned the package over to Baylor Univ in Waco TX, and they,
along with folks from the University of Hannover in Hannover Germany
are maintaining and improving the package. Up through grass5.0beta5 I
had working versions - typically the binary distribution. With
grass5.0beta7, I decided to go with the source distribution, and tried
it - didn't get through the build because of a problem in the Makefiles.
Probably some silly configuration issue. Anyway, GRASS is currently
maintained by Baylor Univ. in Waco TX. and the University of Hannover
in Hannover Germany. The URLs are:
http://www.geog.uni-hannover.de/grass
There is also a semi-commercial project called Blackland grass that spun
off some years ago. It is out of Texas A&M Univ. For whatever reasons,
they have chosen to charge for their product, and I have not checked
into
the licensing arrangement for that software. I think it is more than
a simple port from the Unix environment to the Windows environment. I
think they have added value. The URL for that
page is:
http://srph.brc.tamus.edu/blgrass/
Finally, GRASS was developed originally by the Construction Engineering
Research Laboratory (CERL) folks at the Engineer Research and
Development
Center, which is operated by the US Army Corps of Engineers. It has
been turned over to the folks at Baylor Univ and the Univ of Hannover
for open source maintenance. The URL for the folks at the CERL is:
http://www.cecer.army.mil/grass/GRASS.main.html
Gene Montgomery
Gene Montgomery
> >> The GRASS civil engineering package is a very interesting military-ish
> >> app, and apparently it's been an open source thing for ages,...
>
> > Any software developed by US government employees on government time is
> > free. US copyright law forbids the government to enforce its copyrights.
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> | spi...@freenet.co.uk | |
> |Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| "ARSE! GERLS!! DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!" |
> | in | "THAT WOULD BE AN ECUMENICAL MATTER!...FECK!!!! |
> | Computer Science | - Father Jack in "Father Ted" |
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"GRASS GIS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) is a
Geographical Information System (GIS) with raster, topological vector,
image processing, and graphics production functionality that operates in
the UNIX environment through a graphical user interface and shell in
X-Windows. It is released under GNU GPL. "
NUFF SED
Gene Montgomery
John Hasler
> Does it even forbid the US Government from enforcing its copyrights in
> other jurisdictions?
Not as I read it, but I've never heard of them doing so. Since publishers
could simply arrange to have infringing material printed in the US, it
seems like it would be pointless. Also, some jurisdictions might refuse to
enforce a US government copyright under local law because of the US law.
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>>
>> John Hasler <jo...@dhh.gt.org> did eloquently scribble:
>> > Rick Hohensee writes:
>> >> The GRASS civil engineering package is a very interesting military-ish
>> >> app, and apparently it's been an open source thing for ages,...
>>
>> > Any software developed by US government employees on government time is
>> > free. US copyright law forbids the government to enforce its copyrights.
>>
>> It might be "free" but is it "Free"?
>> Do they release all their source code to the public?
> "GRASS GIS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) is a
> Geographical Information System (GIS) with raster, topological vector,
> image processing, and graphics production functionality that operates in
> the UNIX environment through a graphical user interface and shell in
> X-Windows. It is released under GNU GPL. "
Yeeeeessss...
But that doesn't cover the entire software output of the US government, does
it? (I didn't ask anything about GRASS specifically, but about all of it).
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
| in | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
| Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank V. Castellucci
>
> Gene Montgomery <g.mont...@gte.net> did eloquently scribble:
> > spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
> >>
> >> John Hasler <jo...@dhh.gt.org> did eloquently scribble:
> >> > Rick Hohensee writes:
> >> >> The GRASS civil engineering package is a very interesting military-ish
> >> >> app, and apparently it's been an open source thing for ages,...
> >>
> >> > Any software developed by US government employees on government time is
> >> > free. US copyright law forbids the government to enforce its copyrights.
> >>
> >> It might be "free" but is it "Free"?
> >> Do they release all their source code to the public?
>
> > "GRASS GIS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) is a
> > Geographical Information System (GIS) with raster, topological vector,
> > image processing, and graphics production functionality that operates in
> > the UNIX environment through a graphical user interface and shell in
> > X-Windows. It is released under GNU GPL. "
>
> Yeeeeessss...
> But that doesn't cover the entire software output of the US government, does
> it? (I didn't ask anything about GRASS specifically, but about all of it).
>
> --
They don't make classified materials generally available.
--
Frank
John Hasler
> They don't make classified materials generally available.
But they won't sue you for copying those: they'll just throw you in prison.
In practice, it appears that most of their unclassified software is written
by contractors to who the rule does not apply. While you are free to copy
the rest if you can get it, they are not obligated to distribute it.
hac
>
> Frank V. Castellucci writes:
> > They don't make classified materials generally available.
>
> But they won't sue you for copying those: they'll just throw you in prison.
>
> In practice, it appears that most of their unclassified software is written
> by contractors to who the rule does not apply. While you are free to copy
> the rest if you can get it, they are not obligated to distribute it.
While I am by no means certain, I believe that the rule does apply to
contractors, unless there is a specific exemption. If the taxpayers
paid a contractor to write it, the taxpayers own it. If the taxpayers
only paid to use it, the contractor owns it, and will plaster a DFARS
notice that makes the ownership quite clear.
This is a standard copyright issue. Did you buy (or write) a
work-for-hire, or did buy (or sell) a right-to-use license?
--
Howard Christeller Irvine, CA hchris...@home.com
Gene Montgomery
>
> Frank V. Castellucci writes:
> > They don't make classified materials generally available.
>
> But they won't sue you for copying those: they'll just throw you in prison.
>
> In practice, it appears that most of their unclassified software is written
> by contractors to who the rule does not apply. While you are free to copy
> the rest if you can get it, they are not obligated to distribute it.
developed
for the U.S. Government is written under contract or subcontract to the
U.S. Government. Typically, the contractor has a copyright statement
which is inserted in each module. But that matters little. What
matters
is access. The contractors generally do not want the Government to make
the software available to the public at large. First, as has been
mentioned, is the topic of Security Classification. Second, there is
the issue of exportability. Each Government has the right to develop
intellectual property and protect that property under export rules,
either internally generated, or as a function of treaty obligations,
and the U.S. is no exception. Third, there is the "rice bowl" issue.
This is where the Government Contractors and Subcontractors, Government
laboratories, and the like closely hold the software, since they
generally feel that their livelihood is threatened if they make the
software available to the world of their "competitors". And there
is a tacit concurrence between the Government program offices (who
control the purse strings), the non-profit support organizations,
the Government labs, and the contractors. Here's the way it works:
1). You hear about or see a piece of software in action that
might reduce your expenditure on a particular project for new
development. You want to "reuse" that tidbit on your project.
2). You contact the "owning" organization in the Government. You
ask for the source code so you can save the Government money on
a Government program or on a project which you are funding
internally, and if successful will sell to the U.S. Government.
3). You are told that you must have an appropriate Government
contract for which that tidbit of software you crave is
pertinent. If you don't have that, you are generally out.
4). If you manage somehow to get through the wicket of having
a Government contract which is at least tangentially related,
you are told that you must obtain permission of the
administrative contracing officer for that contract. He may
go to bat for you, but generally only if he is of the
opinion that it benefits his program. The greater benefit
may have been to your company, because of cost savings, but
there may be little direct benefit for the ACO to see. In
fact, his technical support may say that he needs to have
you develop the software without the desired "point of
departure" package. So there are ways to get derailed
at the contract you are working on, assuming that what you
are planning to do is on a contract.
5). If you are on a Govt contract, and you find a sympathetic
ACO, then you only have to go through the wicket of getting
approval and actual access from the Government program office
which "owns" the software. Typically, that approval will be
forthcoming if you have made it through step 4), but not
always. You may be denied because that program office sees
the package as limited distribution, or something that they
wish to close-hold because they don't want the technology
leaking out.
These are just some of the many ways the Government, Government
contractors, Government subcontractors, non-profit Government
support organizations, and Government
labs can seek to limit access to software which has been
developed at Government expense. I have always felt the NASA
policy, borne out of the NASA charter to transfer their technology
into the public sector, was pretty good. However, the implementation
of their distribution (access) system, something called COSMIC,
run by the Univ of GA as I recall, was lousy. You were charged
outrageous prices for the software tapes (remember 9-track mag
tapes?) and the documentation was "AS-IS, Best Available Copy",
and usually terrible. NASA dumped the software on COSMIC, and
they gouged anyone trying to reuse it. So, COSMIC went out
of business. But there was a glimmer of hope there for a while.
Some of the educational institutions doing Government contracts
have tried to be more open with their software, but they
are hamstrung by the existing mindset, which had its roots
in the Cold War, and which was exascerbated by industrial
espionage such as that carried out by so-called friendly
countries.
I won't count on the Government going "open source" for
unclassified and exportable software in the near term. They
will use the open source software that is available (in fact
have already started jumping on the Linux bandwagon), but just
don't have the structure to throw themselves into the OSS
world yet. There are too many organizations who like
things just like they are, thank you. And a great many
of them are companies who make their living supporting the
military acquisition folks.
Finally, let me say that the U.S. DoD is not an organization
set up to provide software to the world, nor even to the
citizens of the U.S. who have good intentions. The
charter is to defend and protect the United States.
If in the process of doing that officialdom deems it
necessary to close-hold some software, I think they
have the right (however uncomfortable it may
be for those of us who are on their side and trying to
help) to make software inaccessible to any one or entity
they desire. Sometimes it may seem like a snotty attitude,
and I have experienced that, but there it is.
BTW, I do not know if FOIA applies to software or not.
Copyrights are not the issue.
Gene Montgomery
Gene Montgomery
>
> John Hasler wrote:
> >
> > Frank V. Castellucci writes:
> > > They don't make classified materials generally available.
> >
> > But they won't sue you for copying those: they'll just throw you in prison.
> >
> > In practice, it appears that most of their unclassified software is written
> > by contractors to who the rule does not apply. While you are free to copy
> > the rest if you can get it, they are not obligated to distribute it.
>
> contractors, unless there is a specific exemption. If the taxpayers
> paid a contractor to write it, the taxpayers own it. If the taxpayers
> only paid to use it, the contractor owns it, and will plaster a DFARS
> notice that makes the ownership quite clear.
>
> This is a standard copyright issue. Did you buy (or write) a
> work-for-hire, or did buy (or sell) a right-to-use license?
>
> --
> Howard Christeller Irvine, CA hchris...@home.com
Hear, hear. Sounds like you have been down this road as well.
I will add, however, that no matter what is in the module header
the contractor puts in, if you can't gain access for the reasons
I mentioned in my earlier post, who owns the software is only an
esoteric discussion.
As a P.S. to my earlier post, I should say that, it is usually
relatively easy to get some delivery of Government software
developed on another program for reuse on your current program,
if you identify it early enough in the proposal phase
of a program as Government Furnished Information, and the
source selection agency agrees to it. They usually run
the interference and deliver it to you as best they can.
Gene Montgomery
John Hasler
> While I am by no means certain, I believe that the rule does apply to
> contractors, unless there is a specific exemption.
The portion of the US copyright law I referred to specifically applies to
works authored by government employees. Contractors are not employees. It
is possible that some court or other has ruled that the provision also
applies to works-for-hire authored by contractors, but the statute does not
say so.
> If the taxpayers paid a contractor to write it, the taxpayers own it.
Unless the contract says otherwise.