This is a read-only archive. Find the latest Linux articles, documentation, and answers at the new!

Feature: Open Source

Why open source works for weapons and defense

By Jay Lyman on January 21, 2006 (8:00:00 AM)

Share    Print    Comments   

Military, weapons, and national defense are certainly not synonymous with open source software, but developers and companies that provide Linux and other open source software for such applications indicate the ideals of open source communities are not contrary to its use in defense.

In fact, what would be contrary to the guiding principles of open source, namely freedom and flexibility of use, would be to preclude the use of open source anywhere, regardless of whether it is the Peace Corps or the Department of Defense (DoD).

Those most vocal about claiming open source is unsuitable often have proprietary software solutions to sell. Green Hills Software President and CEO Dan O'Dowd has said that FOSS is only for those who cannot afford proprietary software, and is not fit for military and defense.

O'Dowd argued that open source software is not better than proprietary software, and claimed that no open source real-time operating system, debugger, or compiler could rival his own company's proprietary technology.

"Open source is not about making better software, it is about making cheaper software for those who can't afford the best software," O'Dowd told NewsForge. "The military must have the best software: the most secure software and the most reliable software. Unlike students, academics, and third-world computer users, the military has the money to buy the best software. The military doesn't buy used uniforms at Goodwill, they don't buy hand-me-down weapons systems from other countries, and they don't buy used trucks for transportation. No, the military must buy the best equipment and software, because doing anything less is a threat to national security."

O'Dowd claimed he had even convinced some within the open source software community that it was not appropriate for such applications with a series of papers he wrote on "the enormous security problems in Linux" in 2004. However, many in the open source community were not convinced.

"Since then, almost all military programs have backed off of considering Linux," he said. "After reading my papers, even open source advocates usually acknowledge that Linux is not appropriate for military, weapons, and defense applications."

For the needy, but not defense

Sam Nitzberg -- an information security specialist with publications and presentations related to military informatics, computer security, technology, and ethics -- indicated the argument is far more complex than O'Dowd makes it, and while he said he believed open source software was indeed appropriate for military and defense application, he added such systems are typically expensive to develop, and pose grave consequences if they fail.

"These systems can also be very complex in nature, and may have to interact with a great number of other systems," Nitzberg said. "Open software and standards can help in these areas. However, just as in the case of proprietary or closed software, an organization tasked with building these systems must carefully deliberate when making software and baselining decisions: identifying the risks involved in using the open source or proprietary software components as its building blocks, weighing how the risks compare to its alternatives, estimating the total costs to be borne, how will the operating systems and tools work with existing technologies being used, considering what degree of support is available, and how will any programmatic risks be mitigated."

"Perhaps the greatest potential strengths of open source revolve around its transparency," Nitzberg said. "You know what you are getting, and this can foster a high degree of trust in the software."

Developers have ideals

Open source developers have heard all the arguments about the quality of propriety vs. open source software before, and answered them ad nauseum. What concerns them more is the moral issues for software authors, not buyers.

"Freedom is the number one ideal of open source and I believe it would be contrary to these ideals to restrict what the software is being used for," said Brandon Philips, an open source developer and Oregon State University Open Software Lab contributor who worked on NASA software that has potential weapons applicability last summer. "The FOSS community is providing a general purpose foundation for a computing system that requires a great amount of customization for a military application, and because of the dedication to the ideals of freedom, I think it is a valid, however possibly unfortunate, use of the software."

Citing a passage of Martin Krafft's The Debian System, Philips referred to the prohibition against preventing "persons, groups, or fields" from using the open source Debian operating system. The Open Source Initiative's Open Source Definition also prohibits licenses from discriminating based on fields of endeavor or persons or groups.

When asked about the ethical implications of creating something with applicability in weapons or warfare, Philips said the intent is good software for any number of potential uses.

"The project I worked on this summer while in the NASA Goddard Robotics Internship Program was general purpose hand recognition software that had as much application on use for Mars rovers and programs for physical rehabilitation of children as it does on a military robot," Philips said. "This is the only software that I have ever developed that has any military applications. Although I am concerned that the software could be used in a weapon, I am hopeful that more productive application may be found. And by using a FOSS license, a developer may be inspired by this software and create an entirely new application."

Free as in freedom

Nitzberg reiterated the point that military, weapons, and defense applications are not at all in conflict with the ideals of much of the open source community.

"Software licenses for open source tend to revolve around distribution mechanisms, defining appropriate copyright mechanisms, requirements to provide any modified sources, rights of users, and the software being 'free' -- as in freedom, not price," Nitzberg said. "If the basis of open source is that a central and defining theme is 'freedom,' there is an immediate contradiction if you then indicate what organizations and bodies you do not wish to make use of these products. Is it OK to restrict such use sometimes, but permit it when you approve of the actions of the government or military?"

Nitzberg dismissed the idea of tying licensing to conditions of how the software is used, or trying to limit its use based on the missions of a given organization that might employ the software.

"I believe this would be problematic," he said. "Very quickly, 'socially-aware' open source software bodies could be partitioned by their areas of interest. If the basis for using the software is restricted based on whether an organization is governmental, military, eco-friendly, or socially aware by any other measure, this could degenerate to the creation of white lists, black lists, and others -- defining organizations permitted to use the software decided by committee. This could become an intractable quagmire for such open source. Also, the talent pool and cumulative efforts would be likewise divided into specific areas of interest. I do not think that factionalizing open source or freeware development on this basis would be desirable or healthy for the open source movement.

"If open source is truly about free software, government or military use will be a natural aspect of broader and growing acceptance of open source."

A matter of ethics

Nitzberg said the ethical issues are faced not only by open source software communities, but by much of the software community and industry in general.

"If you work for a major database vendor, an operating systems provider, an Internet service provider, develop embedded or real-time software technologies, or work with other software technologies, you often really don't control to what ends your product is ultimately used," he noted.

Nitzberg said if people have personal beliefs that guide how software is to be used, but want it to be open, they can produce a customized license, which would help ensure that the efforts were further developed and extended under the beliefs that guided the software's creation, and guide its further use. However, Nitzberg added, this might also limit the software's use, adoption, and any chance for broader acceptance.

"People also have to make sure that they understand the ethical and real ramifications of their work, and that they are comfortable with its use," he said. "In their day-to-day software work, do they believe and support their missions and the legacy their software may leave behind? The personal approach that I take is to try to support the development of systems using the best skills, methods, and efforts that I can to help ensure that the systems do not cause any harm through the results of errors, poor design, weaknesses in security, or other discrepancies. This stands whether I am using open or proprietary products."

Stability, security, and peace

Companies such as LynuxWorks -- which counts Linux-based embedded operating systems and other software sold to the aerospace and defense industries as half of its business -- are evidence that both government and the military really do see a place for open technology and open source software in mission-critical applications.

LynuxWorks Director of Business Development Steve Blackman said that his company's open architecture and open source software solutions play prominently in US defense systems and solutions.

"The Department of Defense believes it's appropriate," he said, adding that the government agency has deemed open source adequate and compliant with software acquisition and assurance standards, such as National Information Assurance Partnership (NIAP) standards.

"That's a whole industry to make sure any software -- be it open source or proprietary -- is safe and doesn't have inappropriate backdoors," Blackman said. "Open source software is not an issue to them."

Blackman said government and the military are more interested in the "free as in freedom" aspects of open source software, as opposed to "free as in beer," adding that FOSS is ideal for such applications because of its flexible and customizable nature. Referring to deployments of open solutions in Iraq, for instance, he argued open source is often more agile for military uses.

"That gives them the autonomy to respond to what needs to be done," he said. "It makes it easier if they don't have to go back and change or re-license. They can just do it."

Blackman also argued the creation and support of a strong military posture, with help from open architecture and open source technology, helps promote peace.

"I believe by supporting our government, aerospace, and defense, it's very ethical to support a secure world," he said. "I think we try to do good things."

While he added it might not sound like a good thing to help provide the components of a nuclear firing control device, companies such as LynuxWorks using open technology are determined to ensure that such systems are safe, reliable, and free of bugs.

Open source rising

Looking ahead, Nitzberg indicated open source software may be building on the base it has already established in defense.

"Open source operating systems have in fact been successfully and productively used in these areas, and will continue to do so," he said. "I believe that the true impact, and true potential, may be yet unseen."

Nitzberg said he was unsure if open source software could reach a critical mass in weapons and defense in the near term, but he stressed the nature of what open source aspires to be -- epitomized by high quality, maintainable code -- will give open source its place in mission-critical systems that must perform repeatedly, predictably, reliably, and accurately.

"Determining if open source systems will become ubiquitous in mission-critical or defense applications really calls for a long event horizon," Nitzberg said. "I will say that I think that it is possible that someday, open source could be prevalent in these environments, but that the systems and applications may not reflect the current software or baselines. Any such trend may start before too long, but take an entire generation to take hold."

Share    Print    Comments   


on Why open source works for weapons and defense

Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.

DoD has been funding FOSS for a while

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 22, 2006 08:37 AM
After all, DARPA used to give bucketfuls of dough to the OpenBSD team until Theo mouthed off about Iraq.


Re:DoD has been funding FOSS for a while

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 22, 2006 02:21 PM
well you can't really be independent if you try to please your sponsors. That said, politics always offends somebody.


Re:DoD has been funding FOSS for a while

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 23, 2006 08:31 AM
yes, but the point is to offend the bad guys. i don't care for BSD, but theo did the right thing here!

screw all those who want to kill only to serve the interests of oil, Israel and the military-industrial complex!


remember Rabelais!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 22, 2006 11:36 PM
Science without conscience is but the ruin of the soul

                    Francois Rabelais, c. 1494-1553

The BSD license pretty much allows anything. The GPL license allows for the use of GPLed software for any purpose. Free software's freedom number 0 specifically affirms "the freedom to run the program, for any purpose". So there is no doubt that anyone can use free software for any purpose. Even for running an extermination camp's database or target urban areas for carpet bombings. Science, per se, has no opinion on good and evil. Only humans can have that sense.

It is incumbent upon us, GNU/Linux, developers and admins to make our choices. We should encourage other members of our community to think about the cause which our efforts serve. It is incumbent on us *as individuals* to refuse to serve the Hegemony.

Some of the most visible members of our community only care about "having fun", some care about being on the bleeding edge of software production methods, whereas others, such as RMS,have *always* realized that free software is not an end, but only a means to the greater, far more important, end: freedom.

Serving the Hegomony is diametrically opposed to, and inherently incompatible with, serving the cause of freedom.

I hope that all of us will find the courage to do what which is right.


Re:remember Rabelais!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 25, 2006 01:02 AM
And your point is?

The GPL doesn't kill people, people kill people.


Remember Marine Corps Major General Smedley Darlin

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 23, 2006 11:56 AM
The normal profits of a business concern in the United States are six, eight, ten, and sometimes twelve percent. But war-time profits – ah! that is another matter – twenty, sixty, one hundred, three hundred, and even eighteen hundred per cent – the sky is the limit. All that traffic will bear. Uncle Sam has the money. Let's get it. Of course, it isn't put that crudely in war time. It is dressed into speeches about patriotism, love of country, and "we must all put our shoulders to the wheel," but the profits jump and leap and skyrocket – and are safely pocketed.

-- U.S. Marine Corps Major General Smedley Darlington Butler, winner of 2 Congressional Medals of Honor


GPLed software, the Distribution of, means of

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 24, 2006 05:43 PM
The GPL is quite ambiguous about methods, means and ways of the distribution of binaries. But as long as a binary covered by the GPL is distributed, the source code must be offered to the person receiving the binary.

If I was an Iraqi programmer surviving the unprovoked bombardment in Baghdad, I would consider that I had an undisputed right to the source code of whatever binary in the bombardment systems that was covered by the GPL - because as this putative Iraqi I would have been on the receiving end of the binaries and their effects.

Of course, if I was an arms purchasing officer for the New Zealand Defense Force, and I was investigating surveillance electronics for the Electras that have served the RNZAF with distinction, I would naturally expect the full, unencumbered, and complete source code, for everything. Because operating the Electras out of the Ross Dependency is going to pose new and different conditions to those obtaining in the South Pacific and the Tasman Sea. And I would be just as likely to get correct information on Ant/Arctic conditions from the Russians, the Canadianss, the Norwegians, the Swedes, the Chileans and the Argentinians as from the USians.

Wesley Parish


Re:GPLed software, the Distribution of, means of

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 24, 2006 11:05 PM
My apologies if you were trying to be funny, but I missed the joke.

The GPL only comes into play when you *distribute* a modified version of a GPL-ed program. It does not come into play when you modify a program for your own use. So I am perfectly within my rights to modify GPL software, and then use it myself without being obligated to pass on my new source code. So I could modify the software to suit my own needs as a business owner, desktop publisher, or even weapons designer, and no one has any right to see what I've done.

Only if I try and redistribute the code, for sale or for free, does the GPL have any meaning. And it is definitely the code, not the products of the code, that is important here. A photograph edited with GIMP is not covered by GPL, and neither is a bomb designed or guided by some other FOSS.


A. Reader


not only military

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 25, 2006 01:25 AM
even the military has to consider money constrains.
They have the fair burden of strange languages that
nobody understand than there contracter. Why not
use open source software ? you have a lot of ppl
working on it and the change is great that you
can find simple and cheap solutions. (but mil has
other constrains than technical or money).

That counts for other goverment bodys also.
emergency services e.g. they need simple reliable
systems they can understand and look into.
easy done with open source, hard work with closed source.


This story has been archived. Comments can no longer be posted.

Tableless layout Validate XHTML 1.0 Strict Validate CSS Powered by Xaraya