Subject: RE: JBoss aquired by Red Hat
From: "Anderson, Kelly" <KAnderson@dentrix.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:30:09 -0600

 Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:30:09 -0600

> Anderson, Kelly wrote:
> > Explain to me the benefit to the government of internally 
> putting an 
> > open source license (any open source licence) on sensitive military 
> > software that it sounds like is already being shared amongst the 
> > legitimate players?
> >
> >   
> One interesting case is the case of derived works.
> 
> Let's suppose that the NSA wants to make some Secret additions to the
> Linux kernel.   They have some suppliers with clearance who can
> prepare these changes.
> 
> Therefore, the suppliers create the derived work and now NSA has
> a GPLed result.   Without needing any kind of special 
> executive authority
> or special act of contract, the executive has the right to 
> use the program freely, study the source, and modify it.
> 
> If next year, the executive decides "this needs to be made 
> public", the NSA has the right to publicly distribute the 
> code even with the vendor additions.

Maybe I'm having a slow morning... but I've read this three times, and I
still don't understand. What is the benefit to the government? Who is
the "executive"? Are they related to the "supplier"? I'm sorry... I just
honestly don't understand the example.

-Kelly





E-Mail messages may contain viruses, worms, or other malicious code. By reading the
message and opening any attachments, the recipient accepts full responsibility for taking
protective action against such code. Sender is not liable for any loss or damage arising
from this message.

The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is
intended solely for the addressee(s). Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorized.