US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register)
US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register)
Posted Jun 12, 2012 4:31 UTC (Tue) by magfr (subscriber, #16052)Parent article: US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register)
Assume that someone fires a cruise missile on you and that there is a GPL component in the cruise missile.
Further assume that the missile is a dud. Ain't you lucky?
Now, you have recieved a device with a copy of GPL software, and we can assume that you aren't part of the senders organization, so I suppose there have to be a written offer somewhere on the missile where you could ask for a copy of the software.
What happens if you exercise your rights? The GPL does not say that the sender can't send a commando team to deliver your code (and execute you) so would you dare to use the rights? (Incidentally I think it do say that they can't charge you for the commando team but that is not much help in this situation)
Is this a loophole in the GPL?
(Log in to post comments)
US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register)
Posted Jun 12, 2012 4:37 UTC (Tue) by tnoo (subscriber, #20427) [Link]
Linux distribution
Posted Jun 12, 2012 4:40 UTC (Tue) by tnoo (subscriber, #20427) [Link]
Linux distribution
Posted Jun 12, 2012 7:12 UTC (Tue) by spaetz (guest, #32870) [Link]
Linux distribution
Posted Jun 12, 2012 23:44 UTC (Tue) by Pc5Y9sbv (guest, #41328) [Link]
US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register)
Posted Jun 12, 2012 5:21 UTC (Tue) by atai (subscriber, #10977) [Link]
US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register)
Posted Jun 12, 2012 12:27 UTC (Tue) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link]
US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register)
Posted Jun 12, 2012 14:34 UTC (Tue) by dashesy (guest, #74652) [Link]
Well, the address is exactly specified somewhere, so it cannot be a theft, they only perform the act of opening the attachment to an unusual form of distribution. However, since they most likely redistribute the code to their northern neighbor, there might be a problem if there is any trade secrets.
US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register)
Posted Jun 12, 2012 19:12 UTC (Tue) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link]
You could think of it as something like a Tivo box, but without even the acknowledgement that someone else is allowed to operate the software.
US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register)
Posted Jun 13, 2012 5:06 UTC (Wed) by scientes (guest, #83068) [Link]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-United_States_copyrigh...
US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register)
Posted Jun 13, 2012 11:24 UTC (Wed) by JanC_ (guest, #34940) [Link]
US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register)
Posted Jun 12, 2012 6:00 UTC (Tue) by cmccabe (guest, #60281) [Link]
from http://www.cendi.gov/publications/04-8copyright.html
> 5.1.1 Does the U.S. Government have any special rights to use copyrighted
> material?
>
> No, the U.S. Government can be held liable for violation of the Copyright
> Laws. Congress has expressly provided that a work protected by the
> Copyright Laws can be infringed by the United States (28 USC §
> 1498(b))117. The exclusive action for such infringement is an action by
> the copyright owner against the United States in the Court of Federal
> Claims for the recovery of monetary damages. However, there is no
> contributory copyright infringement on the part of the Government because
> it hasn't waived sovereign immunity rights. (John C. Boyle, 200 F.3d 1369
> (Fed. Cir. 2000)118.
>
> While the Government may rely on fair use, the use of materials by the
> Government is not automatically a fair use. The U.S. Department of
> Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, has stated in a U.S. Department of
> Justice opinion dated April 30, 1999,119 that "while government
> reproduction of copyrighted material for governmental use would in many
> contexts be non-infringing because it would be a 'fair use' under 17 USC §
> 107, there is no 'per se' rule under which such government reproduction of
> copyrighted material invariably qualifies as a fair use."
Now I guess we get to argue over whether extrajudicial executions constitue "fair use." I wonder what the MPAA's position would be?
Also, if the source comes with a commando squad attached, that hardly seems to be the "preferred form."
US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register)
Posted Jun 12, 2012 6:15 UTC (Tue) by cmccabe (guest, #60281) [Link]
yeah... I'm definitely taking your post a little too seriously... heh.
US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register)
Posted Jun 12, 2012 7:19 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register)
Posted Jun 12, 2012 10:06 UTC (Tue) by tao (subscriber, #17563) [Link]
"But your honour, I only intended to use that public ftp server as a backup of my music/film/software collection, it wasn't intended as filesharing"
US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register)
Posted Jun 12, 2012 11:00 UTC (Tue) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
End of the day, The US government is in a unique position in that it can redefine the rules for itself at the drop of a hat. Already there are clauses in the US code which set statutory limits on damages the federal government can pay as well to a US citizen who makes an infringement claim. And in fact those clauses actually define a concept of willful intent to set the damage aware(so yes intent does come into play to some extent). However compared to the cost of the lost munition itself, the maximum capped damage award is really not that big of a cost. I fully expect that if the issue of munitions (or generally captured US military equipment) comes up for discussion in a court room Congress will feel the urge to carve this out as an explicit fair-use case without losing much sleep over it.
The DoD is doing the bulk of protecting itself by demanding contractors hand over ownership of any proprietary code to the Defense Department instead of holding on to it as a contractor. Which is interesting...
But the real question I have, and I'm sure this will actually be put to the test at some point is the following. Is the federal government really one entity or does distribution clauses latch when one governmental agency hands code to another agency? Is the Defense department itself one entity? Handing code between the Navy and the Airforce..does that latch the distribution clause? They have their own separate logistics and r&d budgets..managed as separate from a day-to-day logistics pov. If they share it with Homeland...is it distribution? I'm really not sure that the federal government can be view as one entity for the purposes of distribution. I'm not even sure the DoD should be view that way...considering how compartmentalized and resource competitive each agency inside the DoD is with the others.
-jef
US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register)
Posted Jun 12, 2012 11:22 UTC (Tue) by vonbrand (guest, #4458) [Link]
Presumably the US Navy has no qualms distributing the source to the US Air Force...
Entities
Posted Jun 12, 2012 14:13 UTC (Tue) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link]
Entities
Posted Jun 13, 2012 5:27 UTC (Wed) by scientes (guest, #83068) [Link]
US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register)
Posted Jun 12, 2012 16:08 UTC (Tue) by xtifr (guest, #143) [Link]
In the case of your ftp site, the fact that you set it up for public access is likely to be a strong counter-argument to your claim that it was for personal use. Especially if it can be shown that you knew how to set up a private ftp site and/or the plaintiffs can find any evidence that you revealed the site's existence to others.
Intent is why "loopholes" in the GPL, like distributing patches-only, generally don't work (ask NeXT about this one).
On the flip side, with the missiles, if the enemy capturing a missile and reverse-engineering it were to count as distribution, then it probably wouldn't be safe to use any software except BSD-licensed. Microsoft would be no happier about having their code copied than a GPL author.
US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register)
Posted Jun 12, 2012 12:01 UTC (Tue) by freemars (subscriber, #4235) [Link]
The question here is intent, and the intent of someone launching a missile at you is that the missile should explode.
...
should probably not be counted as distribution
The intent is widespread distribution. Clearly a violation.
US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register)
Posted Jun 12, 2012 16:39 UTC (Tue) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]
US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register)
Posted Jun 12, 2012 10:03 UTC (Tue) by etienne (guest, #25256) [Link]
> To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying.
Else they have to limit the drone/missile to GPL v2 only (unless they claim it is a "Mere interaction with a user")... -:)
US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register)
Posted Jun 13, 2012 5:29 UTC (Wed) by scientes (guest, #83068) [Link]
US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register)
Posted Jun 12, 2012 7:58 UTC (Tue) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]
(Incidentally I think it do say that they can't charge you for the commando team but that is not much help in this situation)
They can charge you, but no more than "reasonable". Anybody knows how much is a commando mission these days?
From the GPL v.3:
"6.b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge."
US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register)
Posted Jun 12, 2012 10:07 UTC (Tue) by tao (subscriber, #17563) [Link]
US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register)
Posted Jun 12, 2012 13:33 UTC (Tue) by sorpigal (guest, #36106) [Link]
Never underestimate the physical, durable nature of a commando team carrying backup tapes.
US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register)
Posted Jun 14, 2012 16:07 UTC (Thu) by Mity (guest, #85011) [Link]
US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register)
Posted Jun 12, 2012 10:40 UTC (Tue) by debacle (subscriber, #7114) [Link]
I can't see any loophole here. US Navy has mainly two options:
- Send another missile containing the source code.
- Have the source code embedded in any missile in the first place.
The latter option is cheaper, the former option is preferable from a military POV (second chance to kill your enemy a.k.a. innocent children).
US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register)
Posted Jun 12, 2012 12:06 UTC (Tue) by markhb (guest, #1003) [Link]
1) the drones in this instance are actually reconnaissance platforms, not warhead-carrying missiles, and their intended use involves them returning to their launching site rather than exploding, and
2) the Linux software in question is for ground control, and therefore presumably will stay at the ground control site in Maryland rather than actually being loaded onto the drones themselves
... right?
US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register)
Posted Jun 12, 2012 12:46 UTC (Tue) by debacle (subscriber, #7114) [Link]
US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register)
Posted Jun 12, 2012 12:46 UTC (Tue) by etienne (guest, #25256) [Link]
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2011/12/more_on_the...
either illegally from the point of view of some US representatives;
or fully legally considering the point of view of the people actually living in the land;
you may want to duplicate the control center to use them, the GPL may then help you...
US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register)
Posted Jun 12, 2012 14:35 UTC (Tue) by ewan (subscriber, #5533) [Link]
From the article: "can also be fitted 70mm rockets as needed for other missions".Presumably those are reconnaissance rockets then.
the /rocket/ isn't running Linux
Posted Jun 12, 2012 16:14 UTC (Tue) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]
It is quite normal for a reconnaissance mission to be armed. Military forces rarely perform reconnaissance missions on targets known to be friendly, that would be pointless. The distinction from an attack is that the primary _goal_ of the mission is to obtain information.
If they just want to blow something up from a long way away they don't need a drone, ballistic missiles have been available for more than half a century.
the /rocket/ isn't running Linux
Posted Jun 12, 2012 16:40 UTC (Tue) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link]
Of course nowadays they have have given up the pretense and lies about the planned uses of unmanned drones, so these may really be just for reconnaissance. They have much larger and more powerful drones for carrying a wide variety of ordinance now then they had in the past.
Right now I expect they are aiming to eliminate the need for civilian contractors to handle the drones in a Xbox fashion. Maybe the goal with these is to explore and establish the procedures of more more autonomous craft. So they can reduce the number of operational people needed in large scale sorties. So before with older systems you'd need 20 operators for 10 drones you might get away with 20 operators for 200 or 300 drones.
As far as drones vs cruise missiles; I am sure that drones have a number of advantages over cruise missiles. One of them is, I expect, they can loiter over a area for long periods of time and be used to identify targets before striking. That way when they bomb a residence of 20 or 30 people the lawyers in the State Department and/or the Military can be reasonably sure that at least one of them is a likely target. Since hte drone is weaponized and already in the area you don't have to wait long before the approval process to finished before you carry out the actually attack. Another likely advantage is that larger drones can be used to carry multiple warheads and weapon platforms that will give them more flexibility and multiple strike capabilities that older more primitive cruise missiles lacked. Especially for 'soft targets'. And in addition they are re-usable so the total operational of cost over a period of months or years is much less then with using a long string of big cruise missiles.
US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register)
Posted Jun 13, 2012 5:31 UTC (Wed) by scientes (guest, #83068) [Link]
US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register)
Posted Jun 12, 2012 15:37 UTC (Tue) by SiliconSlick (guest, #39955) [Link]
I could see that leading to some very rapid development... at least in the short term.
US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register)
Posted Jun 13, 2012 16:14 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register)
Posted Jun 12, 2012 12:01 UTC (Tue) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link]
The US Navy will "mail" you a copy of the source on another missile, I guess. If the mechanism is good enough to convey the binary code, it should be good enough to convey the source. :)
US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register)
Posted Jun 12, 2012 13:08 UTC (Tue) by Tara_Li (guest, #26706) [Link]
US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register)
Posted Jun 13, 2012 10:04 UTC (Wed) by drago01 (subscriber, #50715) [Link]
Well there are using a GPLv2 kernel ... this does not imply that everything else is GPL.
They could as well just have a userspace application that has the "secret bits" which is using some proprietary license.
Also firing a missile is no way "distribution".
US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register)
Posted Dec 5, 2012 14:16 UTC (Wed) by ekram (guest, #70515) [Link]
If not, what's the difference?