Subject: Re: A few here may have an opinion on this
From: DV Henkel-Wallace <gumby@henkel-wallace.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 14:43:12 -0700

On Wednesday, Oct 23, 2002, at 11:55 US/Pacific, Benjamin J. Tilly 
wrote:

> Brian Behlendorf <brian@collab.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Benjamin J. Tilly  wrote:
>>> http://newsvac.newsforge.com/newsvac/02/10/23/1247236.shtml?tid=4
>>>
>>> A Washington State senator is trying to make it government
>>> policy to not support research that produces GPLed
>>> software...
>>
>> Everyone knows my biases, but I think there's a pretty reasonable 
>> point
>> here.  A "university" license would, in my opinion, be the most
>> appropriate license for government-funded software to be released 
>> under.
>>
> This movement is specifically aimed at keeping the
> government from distributing things like its security
> enhancements for the Linux kernel.

You raise a very good point that I hadn't seen the first time around.

In general I agree with Brian's point (I prefer GPL but I'm OK with the 
gov't using BSD instead).

But the gov't pays companies (Lockheed, SAIC, IBM, MS) to modify their 
proprietary software for gov't requirements; those changes end up as 
part of the vendor's offering (generally such changes wouldn't make 
sense on their own).  Likewise the gov't needs the ability to make 
changes, or contract for changes, to GPL software as with your example. 
  Such changes _can't_ be released under the BSD license -- it would be 
prohibited by the GPL.

So this appears to be reasonable, but really does suck.

Yet another in a furious attempt by the government to shift software 
development offshore.  I guess in five years' time we'll have direct 
government subsidy to the software industry, as happens in other sunset 
industries like steel.

-g