Brian Darling is wrong about free software
https://townhall.com/columnists/briandarling/2017/09/09/senate-defense-
authorization-bill-has-provision-that-will-nationalize-intellectual-
property-n2379048
Lobbyist Brian Darling is talking a whole bunch of garbage about Free Software in relation to government procurement.
The bill has a provision buried that will completely change the way
that the Defense Department procures software from computer
technology corporations. The provision is found in Title VIII,
Subtitle I – “Development and Acquisition of Software Intensive and
Digital Products and Services.” This provision completely changes the
way that software is sold and designed for the federal government in
a way that will expose intellectual property to the world and our
enemies like China, North Korea, and Russia.
States owning intellectual property is a nonsensical notion.
Technology companies invest billions to develop revolutionary new
source codes.
No, they are avoiding taxes worth billions.
These source codes for software companies are considered the most
sensitive information of a company because that is how a company
makes money.
Can we get a [citation needed] in here?
The Senate version of the defense authorization bill would demand
that the companies hand over source codes as a cost of doing business
with the department.
It only makes sense. Proprietary software can't be trusted.
The provision further would set up a database where the defense
department would publish the intellectual property. This is the same
source codes specially designed to protect the United States national
security from ISIS and nations who are intent on harming us.
Does ISIS even have computers other than the ones the CIA gave them
with the weapons drop? https://www.infowars.com/isis-and-the-plan-to-ba
lkanize-the-middle-east/ Which programs are the ones that are designed
to protect the United State's national security? Do you mean Xkeyscore
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-on
line-data or the NSA Hacking software https://www.theguardian.com/techn
ology/2017/oct/26/kaspersky-russia-nsa-contractor-leaked-us-hacking-
tools-by-mistake-pirating-microsoft-office that was leaked because a
contractor pirated Microsoft Office when they could have use the
trustworthy and vetted LibreOffice https://www.libreoffice.org/
instead? Maybe you mean
Vault 7 https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/ from the CIA. Brian, you need
to be more specific.
Current law protects privately developed source codes, yet Sections
881 to 886 would do the opposite and expose trade secrets to
competitor companies and the enemies of the United States.
Competitor companies? We don't have enough competitor companies. We
need the anti-trust hammer on the ISPs in the US as soon as possible.
Also, companies don't really have to sell to the government if they
don't want to. They don't need to get a DUNS number. https://www.sba.go
v/contracting/getting-started-contractor/get-d-u-n-s-number
National security would be immediately harmed because there would be
an exodus of expert contractors.
Where are they going to go?
Insourcing of these functions would lead to the government trying to
produce the new cutting edge source codes – does anybody think the
federal government would be good at this?
The cutting edge source codes? I don't know what this means.
If the Feds do develop software, it should be released to the citizens
under public domain licenses since it was paid for with their tax
dollars.
This terrible provision would also expose the Department of Defense
computing systems to new cybersecurity risks. This provision makes no
sense. This idea obviously would provide a deterrent for any
technology company to do business with the Department of Defense –
and that is the goal.
It it would be a sharp reduction in risk to national security because
all untrustworthy companies would be detoured from feeding the Federal
Government Badware.
This is an idea being pushed by progressives.
Wrong!
The majority of Progressives are pro MAFIAA. Look at how low the Pirate
Party Penetration is across the Globe is. The Mises Institute is
blasting copyright, https://mises.org/system/tdf/lp-3-12_2.pdf?file=1&t
ype=document do you think they are progressive?
The Center for a New American Security (CNAS) has written positively
in a piece titled “Open Source Software and the Department of
Defense.” The CNAS was co-founded by Michele Flournoy, President
Obama’s Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and has been championed
by many former Obama Administration staff.
We need another [citation needed]. How is CNAS progressive? Here is
what they say about themselves.
The Center for a New American Security (CNAS) is an independent,
bipartisan, nonprofit organization that develops strong, pragmatic,
and principled national security and defense policies. CNAS engages
policymakers, experts, and the public with innovative, fact-based
research, ideas, and analysis to shape and elevate the national
security debate. A key part of our mission is to inform and prepare
the national security leaders of today and tomorrow.