Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Programming IT Technology

Government Funds Secret Sustainable Computing 201

Posted by Hemos from the getting-the-money-in dept.
SEWilco writes "OSDN's NewsForge reports that Carnegie Mellon University has started a Sustainable Computing Consortium to improve the quality and security of software. The only news release is that NASA gave CMU $23 million to help create dependable software. SCC members get an internal-use license for SCC software. So taxpayers are paying millions to create proprietary software, and companies get access for a few thousand dollars. (There is some blurring between CMU's SCC and CMU's High Dependability Computing Consortium, although HDCC's web site has been idle for a year.)"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Government Funds Secret Sustainable Computing More

Government Funds Secret Sustainable Computing

Comments Filter:

  • NASA Has Money? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Knoxvill3 ( 578169 )
    Here they are telling us they need money, yet the have $23 million to give away?
    • shhh.... you've let out their secret...

      [insert picture of big pile of NASA money with the chair dancing around it throwing money into the air...]

      Tom
    • $23 million is chump change compared to how much it costs to put something into space..

      • Re: NASA Has Money? (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Knoxvill3 ( 578169 )
        True, granted, this is justified as something to better the agency. But when I read stories and bits of news that paints NASA as one of the poorest agencies of the land, one finds $23 mil to be quite a chunk of change to pull out to give the kids at a university some spending money so they can develop something that may not turn out as expected.

        Yet before and during this, you read stories of projects that NASA had to shut down due to budget cuts, and I think, please correct me if mistaken, NASA Concidering auctioning parts via online auctions to help raise money. Even with just the budget cuts, to me that tells me that $23 Mil is not just some spare cash they had laying around the office. Granted, it's towards developing dependable software that if achived, would reduce the risk factors of future missions and projects (not totally, but at least you have a better chance of not getting a B.S.O.D. when 1/2 way to mars.).

        So after that, I see the goal and I applaude it, but I just feel somewhat mislead to believe the agency was in money troubles, really isn't. Kind of like loaning a friend $100 so they can pay rent, only to see them hauling in a 63" Flat Screen T.V. they just bought the next week.
        • Yes, you were wrong, so I will correct you. The story you're alludingto has to do with NASA buying old, obsolete hardware off of eBay, since it's hard to find in 'normal' channels.

          And yes, NASA may be underfunded (if you're one of 'those' people who think it's the .gov's job to fund such entities). Even so, $23M is a small price to pay to avoid wasting a satellite or space probe to a programming error.
  • Ummm.. this is obviously a technology NASA needs and wants developed, for rather obvious reasons: space shuttles and the command stations require dependable computation, people's lives and billions of dollars of research spending going to waste because of failed missions depend on it.
  • there must be many such univs
    • UW-Madison has the Condor Project [wisc.edu], which you could say is related.
      • Condor is a software system being developed as part of a research project at an university, just like thousands of others.

        The CMU thingy is a consortium, i.e. an agreement for a whole bunch of people/entities to work together. Assumably, they will organize conferences and workshops, hand out grant money, to encourage work in this area.

        The two are entierly different.
    • CMU's computer science department is top-notch. Their Software Engineering Institute is the home of software process, which has the goal of turning computer programming into an engineering discipline (e.g. measurable, repeatable) instead of an art (e.g. "wow, great hack").

      They also have one of the best robotics departments, with a heavy emphasis on industrial robotics applications, embedded systems, etc. (as opposed to MIT's Rodney Brook's COG behavior work).

      In fact, CMU as a whole has a very heavy slant towards Industrial Application. Their business school turns out poor managers, but good Operations Researchers. The Humanities Department is known for its Social Policy Theory.

      Give CMU millions and you get back real, usable results.

      Also, it's in Pittsburgh.. ya know, Da 'Burgh. Stillers!

      On the downside, the weather there sucks.

  • Free the software (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jhoger ( 519683 ) on Wednesday May 15, 2002 @06:43PM (#3526678) Homepage
    Non-classified government funded software should be Free for public use, I guess is the point here. Are there any ongoing lobbying efforts to this effect?
    • Only in Peru, my friend, only in Peru.
      • Hmmm, in that case I better brush up on my Spanish.

        Hello, my name is Mike.
        Hola, me llamo Miguel

        O. la. may. yam. mo. mee. gal.

        I don't like MS.
        No me gusta MS.

        No. may. goo. sta. em. may. es. say.

        <g> -MKD

      • Where their main language is Portuguese so you probably wouldn't be able to use their software anyway!
    • Hmmm, didn't Microsoft go on record that they supported taxpayer funded research being freely available provided it would not be encumbered by the GPL?

      Or would that just have been a divide and conquer approach to make sure the free software camps keep fighting each other rather than joining forces?

      I personally shudder at the thought that taxpayer money should go to subsidizing software hoarding (and that's any taxpayer money, not just US).

      Oh well. This won't impact open software one way of the other until patents get thrown into the mix. Closed source has never hurt open source.
      • I read that too.

        And I think a BSDish or X11 license would be a fine choice for the government to use since it doesn't take any political stance. (Although it would be great if they (we) chose the GPL.)

        It's simply astonishing though that unclassified information which is produced a taxpayer expense, and by nature doesn't cost much to distribute, isn't given away for free.
    • I'm so tired of hearing this nonsense every time there is a story about a U.S. government software project. Sorry, kids, but most of you haven't thought this thing through.

      Here's the deal, folks: imagine you work for one of several companies that makes software that does X. Now, a government agency develops its own software that does X, perhaps because they need a feature that no company supports, or they need to be doubly sure it's bug free, etc. Furthermore, assume the agency's software kicks ass (believe it or not, much government-developed software is pretty damn good.)

      Now, if that agency releases its software to the public domain, how do you, and your company, and your competitors feel? Would all enjoy being driven out of business by your own tax dollars at work? How would this "foster U.S. economic competitiveness" (a stated part of the mission of most government agencies?)

      Didn't think so, and no, it wouldn't. That's why a good deal of government-developed software and technologies aren't just given away.

      • Re:Free the software (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jhoger ( 519683 )
        Lose the tude, pal, your logic ain't that solid.

        By your reasoning, we shouldn't have any government roads since that would compete with toll roads.

        No military since that would compete with mercenaries.

        And your argument about that companies tax dollars is pretty ridiculous too, since they likely only put in a miniscule fraction of the money that went into that product. The government does owe any corporation the protection of its industry, whether from publicly funded software or their competitors, or foreign competitors.

        We should have access to the IP our dollars produce. Is that so hard to understand?

      • Re:Free the software (Score:4, Insightful)

        by SEWilco ( 27983 ) on Wednesday May 15, 2002 @09:42PM (#3527516) Journal
        Uh... If the government produces software which is better than what your company has, your competitors can buy it for a few thousand dollars. Government does want research and side effects made available (the term is "technology transfer) because otherwise it is wasted. [insert favorite NASA tech examples such as moon buggy rubber allowing winter radial tires]

        Any of your competitors will have it. Your company should also buy a copy, so you can use its improvements in your product and keep ahead of the competition.

        Making the software available free just means that many small businesses and freelancers can browse and get inspiration from it. And most businesses are small businesses, with the occasional big company arising from them.

        • Re:Free the software (Score:2, Informative)

          by HisMother ( 413313 )
          Tang and moon rubber are commodities, and the government doesn't manufacture and sell commodities, so this argument is specious. The gov't wouldn't and couldn't produce Tang and give it away. But as we all are so fond of pointing out here, bits are entirely different from bricks, and software, therefore, follows different rules.

          If agency X gives away its software for free, then users can use it for free, end of story. They no longer need to buy the software from your company. In a big market like OSs or C++ compilers or what have you, this is probably like a piss in the ocean, and it doesn't matter. But in a small vertical market, where each competitor may only have a few customers, losing even one can really hurt. Note that by giving something away that another company was selling, the agency would be actively shrinking the economy -- reducing the GNP by the cost of unsold software.

          Another correspondent replied to my first post, saying something like "the government doesn't owe any individual small company anything." But they do, as I said. It is a sworn part of their misson not to run any companies out of business. In fact, most government agencies have large and complex purchasing bureacracies dedicated to making sure that their spending habits don't put any individual businesses at a disadvantage, especially small and minority-owned businesses.

          • Note that by giving something away that another company was selling, the agency would be actively shrinking the economy -- reducing the GNP by the cost of unsold software.

            Oh my god, Bill & Co were RIGHT! Open Source WILL destroy the economy!

            Orrr..... maybe the money that would have been spent on the thing being given will just go to something else, putting more cash flow into a difference sector.
            • While we're messing with GNP, spend less on roads.

              Worse roads, more repairs based on shocks and struts.

              Over all, government spends less on roads, and GNP goes up with increased mechanic work.
              (but dosen't the general citizenry of the country get screwed?)

              Hrm.. Perhaps GNP isn't the wonderful indicator everybody thinks it is?

              • Problem with measuring only PART of the picture.
                Over all, government spends less on roads, and GNP goes up with increased mechanic work.
                (but dosen't the general citizenry of the country get screwed?)
                The whole picture is more like:
                The general citizenry gets screwed and spends a little less here, a little less there. The GNP picks up the decrease in ALL those other places and would show an overall decrease in spite of the increased mechanic work.
                The GNP has a handle on value received for money spent only to the extent that the market can shift to putting more money into places where the value is greater. Things like the Irish potato famine, where people are spending more and getting less, can give anomalous results.

                • But the problem with this is the time that it takes to work through the system, and be registered.

                  Overall GNP is a very inaccurate indicator

                  Guiding the economy is like programming a neural network armed with only goto statements (you usually have the wrong too, and all the knowledge on how it works is mostly theoretical).
                  • For guiding the economy, I've gotta agree with you. Too much time lag, and more important, no good idea of what the GNP would have been otherwise.

                    Programming a neural net armed with only goto might be workable. Essentially you program a Finite State Automaton and you have long cryptic labels which actually define the state. Kinda, sorta does not work.

          • Re:Free the software (Score:2, Informative)

            by SEWilco ( 27983 )
            The government doesn't make many commodities, although maps come to mind, but is very influential on electric, telephone, and radio/TV industries, as well as all the subsidized farming industries. (Speaking of maps, without government maps we'd have much more difficulty creating GPS devices, outdoor sports maps, population trends...would your fishing be more efficient if you had to pay $5,000 for a USGS topological map instead of a few dollars?)

            Government agencies and researchers are constantly doing things which can put companies out of business. Let's see current stories on CNN...

            • Genetic research may help anthrax mystery. That's bad for the drug industry, hospitals and cleaning services.NSF funding [tigr.org], using results of research from 3 US and a UK government agency.
            • Judge orders VeriSign to stop ad campaign. That sounds a little restrictive on business.
            • Wearable computers enhance the world. Threatening tour guides, makers of sprinkler system maps, pipeline markers, and jet engine mechanics.
            • ISPs seek to void ruling on police searches. ISPs are complaining that a dozen police hanging around each day could be bad for business.
            • House set to renew welfare program. Bad for lawyers, companies that need cheap unskilled labor, companies that pay taxes used for welfare, competitors of companies which print welfare forms, the extinct creditor's prison industry.
            • GOP leader skips Bush meeting over Crusader. Millions of dollars cut off from companies working on Crusader, and competitors who weren't getting those millions.
            • White House won't defer import duties. Anyone need explanation of how imports or duties affect businesses?
            Many of the conflicts are because many researchers are looking for solutions to what they perceive as problems but companies are dependent upon. Higher car fuel efficiency reduces amount of gas sold, fewer visitors to gas station convenience stores, less work for the drivers of fuel trucks...
      • When you look only on the impact of those that produce the software, you ignore the impact on purchasers. By reducing IT and technology costs of all companies using this software, such actions do indeed benefit businesses (just different businesses). To restate myself: If this government-funded program is better than everything else out there, and consumers prefer to buy it to alternatives, then the consumers (usually businesses themselves) are better off with the government-funded program released. Compared to the well-being of the (usually many) businesses using this software to turn a profit, the monetary benefits of companies offering inferior software just doesn't matter so much.

        If the government-funded program is not better than everything else out there, or there are significant market reasons to keep other alternative products in play, then there will be customers for these products, and the market will keep them alive.

        Further, public-domain code doesn't extend, document, test, bugfix and otherwise support itself. Someone needs these services, which means someone will be willing to pay, and someone will still make money off the software. If it isn't the same people who made money off it beforehand... tough shit.
      • Its interesting that you have made the same analysis as the Peruvian congressman that wants their government to use only free software but come to the opposite conclusion.
      • (believe it or not, much government-developed software is pretty damn good.)
        No fucking shit.

        OF COURSE government-developed software is pretty damn good!!!
        They don't have fucking marketroids [clueless.com] breathing down their necks!!!

  • The obligatory joke is that to get an order of magnitude improvement, you first need to drop the sustainability for an order of magnitude. I think the reference to Bill Gates on the home page of sustainablecomputing.org is in acknowledgement of his contributions in this area.

  • Secret? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by CFN ( 114345 ) on Wednesday May 15, 2002 @06:53PM (#3526717)
    I don't understand the title of this article. What's "secret" about this?
    Propriatary, yes, and perhaps it's wrong for the gov. to turn our tax money into a Microsoft product (but of course, the government gives billions in tax rebates, subsidised loans, etc. to EVERY american business), but there is definitly nothing secret about this.

    Stop the FUD!

    • Re:Secret? (Score:3, Funny)

      by cpeterso ( 19082 )

      Forget "closed source". Now we have evil "secret source" software!

      • Maybe hidden or secret source code might be a good way to spin it.

        Why buy software that the people have to hide or keep the source a secret? If they dont have something to hide?

        just a random thought

  • From the project website:
    Q: What is sustainable computing?
    A: The environment we characterize as sustainable computing is one in which:
    Software is developed with quality, dependability and security in mind from inception, and these attributes can be accurately measured and validated
    Software is resilient in the face of unexpected challenges; and
    Developers, users, and policymakers interact based on fairness, precision, and a shared interest in the vitality and competitiveness of the software industry.
    Isn't it the same as (not in the same order) Simplicity, Clarity, Generality [amazon.com]? (Brian W. Kernighan, Rob Pike, The Practice of Programming)
  • That's enough to pay for 4.6 million slashdot subscriptions. In other words, the entire online population of Africa.

  • And so it goes (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tchdab1 ( 164848 ) on Wednesday May 15, 2002 @06:59PM (#3526747) Homepage
    >>So taxpayers are paying millions to create proprietary software, and companies get access for a few thousand dollars.

    I hope this is not trollish, but there has been a lot of this going around for quite some time; indeed, it's how the world works in the domestic USA. Pharmaceutical (sp?) funding gets Gov. grants for the coarse, laborious, and often empty research, and then hands over any promising results for free to Merck and others for development into actual drugs. Universities do lots of basic research that then, when promising, can be used by manufacturers, and if classified will even be denied to you and I.
    Now you can argue that these results help fuel the economy, but you can also argue that the marketplace should be charging for the information developed at the expense of the funders.

    Hey, it's only our money. What's on TV?

  • Public funds should equal public source. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rushfan ( 209449 ) on Wednesday May 15, 2002 @06:59PM (#3526748) Homepage Journal
    If the software is written using public funds (i.e. my tax dollars are paying for this), then the resulting software should be publically available. Either under a GPL type license or under a BSD sytle license (with a BSD license, then even companies could incorporate the publically funded technology into their products to sell, sorta giving them something back for their tax dollars). Either way, if we paid [taxes] for it, then it should be available to us.

    Maybe we could get a bill passed that states all software not written for national security that is paid for by taxes should be open to the tax payers. Just a thought.

    • I think there already is a law. There is probably some gray area that allows this sort of obvious slap in the face of taxpayers and the Open Source community.

      My opinion is that nothing valuable will come of this. OSS has proven itself already as the most effective way to develop hardened software, no more research should go forward without starting where the OSS community is currently in regards to this area.

      This is obvious bullshit and no one with half a brain will stick with this project.

      Software written with taxpayer dollars should be released simply as public domain with the source code available upon request.
    • I agree completely. (begin sarcasm) But also, my tax dollars help pay for the space shuttle, so I should be able to ride in it. Also, my tax money helps pay for government cars and farm subsidies, so I should be able to drive any government car, and eat for free.

      May I ask that someone clarify why this is any different?

      If NASA needs better software to ensure that the space shuttle, and the billions of dollars that have been sunk in it, doesn't explode, well, let them pay for it.

      Is there an open source alternative which delivers the same quality? Please point out my ignorance.

      • I agree completely. (begin sarcasm) But also, my tax dollars help pay for the space shuttle, so I should be able to ride in it. Also, my tax money helps pay for government cars and farm subsidies, so I should be able to drive any government car, and eat for free.

        May I ask that someone clarify why this is any different?

        How much does it cost to send up the shuttle? Millions of dollars.

        How much does it cost to burn a CD full of taxpayer-funded software? A few bucks.

        That's how it's different.

    • I'd like to throw my two bits in.

      Public funds should not equal public source. There is my bias.

      Public funds SHOULD provide public benefit. I don't want tactical nuke control software public sourced so people can browse through, so I guess we'll have to have a restriction there. Oh, and there is that evil cellular lobby that wants to co-fund a project with the government so we'll have to stop that because the cellular companies want to keep some info private.

      Eventually, so many exceptions will have to be made, we'll end up with what we have now - sometimes, research stays private, even if we paid for it. By and large, it is publicly available.

      In a system where the government imposes must-share rules on everything they touch, we'll also have to identify every penny that came in. Also, if partnering with a company, we'll have to make sure they don't provide anyone that might learn something and use it at the company.

      To sum it up: open sourcing everything is wrong. Closing access to all information is wrong. There needs to be a balance.

      Worst case scenario in a mixed-system: a company gets access to research that taxpayers can't see. Obviously, there is no benefit to taxpayers correct?

      Forgot to mention, the research was on how to get 5x the battery life on Li-ion batteries. The company makes better batteries and makes more money. If they choose to hire more people, we benefit. If they keep all the profit and change nothing, anyone owning stock in the company benefits.

      When research is used successfully, it is nearly impossible for society to lose (insert your favourite anti-nuclear idea here to "prove" me wrong). The benefits of everyone being able to use research as opposed to a few (or one) entity seeing that research is small, maybe even zero.

      Society benefits from research. This is what we want to encourage, not one-rule-fits-all thinking.

      end rant.

      Jeff
      If you don't like what I have to say, hit "reply" and post your thoughts for discussion, don't mod anyone down because you disagree.
      • Oh, and there is that evil cellular lobby that wants to co-fund a project with the government so we'll have to stop that because the cellular companies want to keep some info private.

        So? The cellular companies alone write the parts they want to keep private. The co-funded team writes everything else. If the cellural companies don't want to pay themselves for the private parts, then the source goes open -- if they want public funds to pay it, it should be public source. (Military software is of course an exception to this).

        ...Also, if partnering with a company, we'll have to make sure they don't provide anyone that might learn something and use it at the company.

        How does that follow?

        Worst case scenario in a mixed-system: a company gets access to research that taxpayers can't see. Obviously, there is no benefit to taxpayers correct?

        There may be some public benefit, but it isn't the same level as benefit as if all companies making batteries were able to get 5x the battery life and universities doing research were able to access the findings.

        The question isn't society "losing" -- the question is of benefit being lesser than it might, and (more importantly) of projects paid for by everyone helping only some small subset of those who coughed up cash -- something that happens all the time, certainly, but should be avoided whenever possible.
    • Well, I support such a concept, but the free licensing should only extend to citizens that paid for it. In other words, if you're not paying taxes, you shouldn't benefit from it.

  • On paying for a private project with public money (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Niten ( 201835 ) on Wednesday May 15, 2002 @07:03PM (#3526771)

    To rehash what appears to be a popular theme around these parts... I just don't see how one can excuse the use of public money for projects that only select private parties can benifit from. Granted, this project is likely to benifit NASA in that it could help them provide better mission-critical systems for the space station, future spacecraft, and so on... but I still feel that taxpayers should not be made to pay to help develop a product that targets them as consumers, a project with a licensing scheme that would make it anything but available to the general taxpaying public.

    These are, perhaps, the kinds of things that we need better government accounting regulations to keep track of.

    • I just don't see how one can excuse the use of public money for projects that only select private parties can benifit from.

      Any private party can benefit from it, all they have to do is pay $25,000/year. Or were you talking about the SCC as the select private party? Because I would assume they're going to spend all the money they receive from the government and members on the research.

      I'm not sure if the SCC is a non-profit, but it certainly should be. If not them maybe you have a point.

    • You pay Nasa for exploring space and to boldy go where no one has gone before. You don't pay them to provide you with the software they use to achieve this goal (software for controlling rockets, shuttles and other stuff that I'm sure you don't have). Selling the software to private parties means that they have more money available to achieve their primary goal. This does benefit the taxpayer.

      Or perhaps you would rather pay more taxes because Nasa can't sell their software? In return you'd get all the software to control your own space shuttle for free. Wouldn't that be great?
      • ...and you'd also get all the software infrastructure they write to sustain their extremely-high-reliability software development practices. That might be well worth the cash.

  • So what happens when... (Score:5, Funny)

    by csguy314 ( 559705 ) on Wednesday May 15, 2002 @07:04PM (#3526772) Homepage
    stuff from the FSF is still around in a few decades, and their stuff has been completely rewritten 100 times?
    Maybe then they'll realize what sustainable means...
    nahh....
  • Hey! They funded the Minuteman missile, and didn't even give me the plans so I could build my own! Those're public funds, dammit, and I know they've got extras laying around. I want one!
    • The parent will probably be modded "Funny", but there is a good source for debate here...

      Obviously, there are boundaries to what the public should expect back from its tax dollars at work.

      The public would not take kindly to minuteman design plans to be revealed under the Freedom of Information Act (in fact, that act is pretty specific in this respect, but since it was intended to repair the situation where government officials were hiding information the public should have access to, a lot of thought went into defining those boundaries; unlike the more general laws that deal with public use of government sponsored activities).

      It would probably be a good thing if the House looked into this whole thing. Yeah, I know. I'll be dressing up warmly just in case hell freezes over.

  • Where is the problem here? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jimmcq ( 88033 ) on Wednesday May 15, 2002 @07:12PM (#3526802) Journal

    So NASA needs some Sustainable Computing and they spent $23million of their budget to get it. Where is the problem here?

    Is this trying to imply that all NASA software should be free?
    • Hey, we're paying for it so we should get to use it.

      The only question for me is whether it needs to be GPL, LGPL, or BSD licensed.

      • We also pay for the space shuttles... that doesn't mean that I get to take it out for a spin whenever I want.
        • That's apples and oranges.

          Space travel involves finite resources - finite amounts of time, materials, etc. However, once software is produced, the cost in distributing it is extremely small, and thus making it possible to give it back to the citizens who paid for it.

        • True, but companies dont get to take out the space shuttle for a spin either. In the case is this software, there is an inequity in the availability of the software for the taxpayer who paid for it and the corporations who didnt. Why should they get it cheaper? If anything, the pricing should be the other way around.

          • True, but companies dont get to take out the space shuttle for a spin either.

            What about Dennis Tito? He pays for part of the russian space budget in exchange for a trip into space. Companies also pay for getting their experiments on the space shuttle. This reduces our taxes.

            In the case is this software, there is an inequity in the availability of the software for the taxpayer who paid for it and the corporations who didnt.

            Wrong. You never paid for the use of the software. You paid for the stuff they do with space shuttles, rockets, etc. The software is just a byproduct. Companies sponsor Nasa by paying money for this byproduct. Doing so, they lower the taxes you have to pay (or increase the value you get for the taxes).
      • We could also use the dual license idea.

        Gov't should require (for non-classified material):

        GPL it to us for free.
        Proprietary license it to the corporations for a fee.

        That way the consortium can get funding, corporations can hide away inside their code that reasonable people can use for free, and we reasonable types can get our software we paid for.
        And the software will fluorish quite well in the Free software community, improving the software without the gov't spending a dime more in cases where the code is of general utility.
      • BSD seems the best for this. Its the most free, and since companies and individuals can use it the same, it gives everyone an oppurtunity with little restrictions.

        I prefer GPL personally, but thats my own opinion for MY code.
        • Yeah, I'm usually pretty hardcore in my support of the GPL license, but that's because authors can *choose* that license. If a license were to be mandated for this kind of work, I think BSD really might be the best.
        • But since the US passed the Bayh-Dole act, government funded agencies are free to privatise their discoveries for profit - and in practice, there is a lot of pressure to play the commercialisation game.

          So perhaps the right strategy to lobby for is to GPLed the code, with the alternative of paying for a proprietary license, as Trolltech, for example, does with Qt.

          This also has the nice property that it debunks all of Microsoft's arguments against the GPL, which claim that the license prevents the transfer of publicly funded technology to the private sector.
      • It really ticks me off when I see people saying that publicly funded code should GPLed.
        That is *less* free. The GPL (or any license) *restricts* the use of the code.
        Public Domain is the only way to go.
        Public domain meaning that anyone and any company can do what ever they want with the code,
        including the freedom to not tell anyone that they are using it!
        The modifications they make are their own, and they can sell, license, GPL those modifications as they wish.
        However, they can't patent the original code, since there is prior art (the Public Domain code).

    • Re:Where is the problem here? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by startled ( 144833 ) on Wednesday May 15, 2002 @07:35PM (#3526892)
      "So NASA needs some Sustainable Computing and they spent $23million of their budget to get it. Where is the problem here?"

      We give gov money. Gov gives NASA money. NASA gives SCC money. SCC develops cool software, and gives businesses a great deal on it.

      Well, if corps were the only ones paying taxes, no problem. But I pay taxes, too. And here's what they claim Sustainable Computing is supposed to do:
      The environment we characterize as sustainable computing is one in which:
      Software is developed with quality, dependability and security in mind from inception, and these attributes can be accurately measured and validated
      Software is resilient in the face of unexpected challenges; and
      Developers, users, and policymakers interact based on fairness, precision, and a shared interest in the vitality and competitiveness of the software industry.

      Sounds totally sweet. Sounds useful for everyone. Why not open it up?

      "Is this trying to imply that all NASA software should be free?"

      That argument could be made, but this is a much simpler argument. I don't want to quibble about hardware-specific software for some hacked-together satellite. The question is, should we open up broadly useful software to the people who paid for it? I say: why not? Hell, make it free for commercial use. Here's the SCC's argument again: "Recent estimates suggest that defective software accounted for 45% of computer downtime and cost U.S. companies over $100 billion annually".

      Okay. They claim it's very important to the entire U.S.. Well guess who paid for it: that's right, everyone. So give it to us already! I could care less about some hardware-specific code for some hacked-together satellite; quibble about that amongst yourselves. But "improvements in software quality and security" would benefit everyone. If they're not going to hand it out for free, cut out the corporate welfare and make them develop their own damned software-- maybe then these things would get developed in the private sector, and NASA could get it a hell of a lot cheaper.

    • If the US taxpayers paid for the NASA software, then perhaps it should be freely available (ala GPL or BSD). Even if the software is effectively "useless" because few people have space shuttles in their driveways, I think still think it would be useful. Students could learn from reading the "industrial strength" code. Companies and individuals could create alternative implementations, fix bugs, or create test tools.
    • Their budget is made up primarily of public funds (aka tax dollars). Public money is supposed to be spent on things which benifit the public, therefore publicly funded software should be "free" to all since everyone payed for it. I say "free" because like I said, you actualy paided for it with your taxes.
      • Try telling that to all the companies that have received corporate tax credits in the last 10 years. There are some major companies like GE or Ford and oil companies that haven't paid taxes for like years now. You'd think companies should pay more because they make more money..but that's not how it works in this government.

    • If NASA software was free, it might help other countries or private companies build their own space vehicles for the better of all of mankind! Oops, nevermind.. I forgot that NASA wants a monopoly on that.
  • So if I looked at a SSC program I'd see lots of:

    switch()
    {
    foo:
    }

    ?
  • I'll admit that the government funds alot of stuff that goes to good, albeit proprietary use. The entire world isn't open source yet, and I'm not sure it should be. However, it is kind of scary to see the government getting buddy-buddy with corporations over computer security/high availability, _AND_ purposely cutting out individuals.
  • So.. everyone is saying that if we are paying for it, we should have access to it. What about those who aren't payingfor it? Should people who are taxpayers in other countries not get access to the work?

    Should Russia or China have free access to programs written by NASA? If programs were open sourced just because they are funded by taxpayer money, well, wouldn't that help people we still view as competition in some ways?
    • I don't see your point. If this scary foreign government wanted that software they could find a proxy corporation to license it.

      The point is that consortium's code is quasi-open now, it's available at a relatively low cost to your average business or major government. But that cost isn't so low to the average citizen
  • We aim to maintain a level of continuity in the quality of reliable computing consortiums in existance today. Gone are the days of having uninformed, outdated consortiums changing their names to reappear in the spotlight. The Sustainable Reliable Computing Consortium Initiative will serve as a watchdog group for reliable computing consortiums of various types.
  • Part of the Microsoft Method for Making Money (R) (patented), is to ensure software always expires, goes rusty or is made obsolecent. Any attempts to circumvent this process clearly are a breach of the law.
  • After reading the somewhat inflamatory article, I'm inspired to consider a counterinitiative. Techniques for building better software(besides the obvious many eyeballs) coming from the open source/free software communities using open methods to improve all software is a very headlinable idea, and think of the PR boost that having developed better methods more quickly or better than a comparable proprietary only solution would bring.

  • I actually serve on the committee (Score:5, Informative)

    by quinto2000 ( 211211 ) on Wednesday May 15, 2002 @08:36PM (#3527236) Homepage Journal
    That is currently reviewing Carnegie Mellon's restricted research policy [cmu.edu]. I'll bring this up. Just so that you all know, this research must be with one of CMU's "semi-autonomous units," and no students are participating in the research, otherwise it could not have cleared our Provost. At any rate, this is interesting information to have.
  • If you read the actual press release you will get the impression that It's not really a software Development Project at all, its more of an effort to FIGURE OUT the best ways to build Software and Computers for Sustainability.

    It will probably end up being a LAB or even a School, at which they work on Sustainability issues. My guess would be that the results/findings will be widely presented and published. I think that resulting SW tools may or may not end up being open-sourced.

    The prevailing theme I read in other postings is that people think that anything the Gov't funds, should be open. That idea doesn't hold any water anyplace. Weapons the gov't funds the development of are not open. And I don't want them to be. I don't want the software that runs a weapon to be open either. You can't go buy a missile, and you can't go download the code that runs in a missile, and I like it that way.

    Furthermore, the "Open-Source way" kind of breaks down when it comes to obscure problems that only specific groups ( like governments ) need to solve. People need to have something that excites them and interests them about working on some project. At least they need the hardware that it will run on.

  • Well, it seems to be at least somewhat related to the Software Engineering Institute / CERT, etc. which is fairly separate from the rest of CMU, and a lot more large-software-corporation oriented than many of the research groups are. Of course, one of the nice things about a university is that it can be large enough to support both open communities and proprietary ones. Instead of trying to *fix* this one however, why not just support other open security projects, such as Ballista [cmu.edu] (which incidentally is also at CMU).
  • I bet you would have griped about the government 'wasting' the taxpayer's money by ARPA.

    The fact is that many times government has to 'jump start' technologies. When they do, it usually benefits the whole society. And no, not every project the government funds becomes a roaring success. As long as a fair percentage turn out to be useful the goal is accomplished.

    • Oh yeah!

      SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN - Sept. 1994
      Article - "Software's Chronic Crisis"
      [Sidebar]
      Mary M. Shaw of Carnegie Mellon University, observes a parallel between chemical engineering evolution and software engineering evolution. However, this evolution has not made the connection between science and commercialization required to establish a consistent experimental foundation for professional software engineering.

Slashdot Top Deals

"How to make a million dollars: First, get a million dollars." -- Steve Martin

Close