US Navy denies it pirated 550K copies of software, says contractor consented

Re:US Navy denies it pirated 550K copies of software, says c... by jimktrains2 on Tuesday November 15, 2016 @09:55AM (#12958464)

And this is yet another reason the government should not use Proprietary software. F/OSS solutions wouldn't have these types of issues.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US Navy denies it pirated 550K copies of software, says c... by barneygumble742 on Tuesday November 15, 2016 @03:18PM (#12961799)

The problem with F/OSS in the DoD is supportability. If the software is fielded, there has to be someone (person or company) that's on stand-by that is available to support the product. This includes code maintenance and information assurance. There's a constant fair amount of personnel turn-over but the information and personnel to support the fielded software should be readily available.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US Navy denies it pirated 550K copies of software, says c... by jimktrains2 on Tuesday November 15, 2016 @10:33PM (#12964350)

> The problem with F/OSS in the DoD is supportability. If the software is fielded, there has to be someone (person or company) that's on stand-by that is available to support the product.

So, hire someone? This is basically what RedHat does. F/OSS doesn't mean you can't pay people to support it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US Navy denies it pirated 550K copies of software, says c... by barneygumble742 on Thursday November 17, 2016 @09:25AM (#12977656)

Yes and no. Depends on the project's importance and funding. It's always about funding.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US Navy denies it pirated 550K copies of software, says c... by jimktrains2 on Tuesday November 15, 2016 @10:11AM (#12958601)

Thanks for the downvotes without any explanation. F/OSS would not have issues like this. It would provide the Navy with software that doesn't need to have it's "phone-home" mechanism removed.

I'm not absolving the Navy, just putting forward the point of view that these types of software problems don't need to happen.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US Navy denies it pirated 550K copies of software, says c... by tener on Tuesday November 15, 2016 @10:27AM (#12958757)

I did not downvote you, but I think the others may be downvoting you because there simply isn't F/OSS software available for many things - including, I believe, advanced VR. So F/OSS point is moot as it wasn't an option..

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US Navy denies it pirated 550K copies of software, says c... by jimktrains2 on Tuesday November 15, 2016 @10:41AM (#12958873)

They could have commissioned it. How much was this ruling and how much were the licenses they did pay for? We're starting to get to the point where it isn't necessarily cheaper to purchase.

The Navy also has quite a bit of clout; they got this vendor to remove DRM. If the government insisted on F/OSS, there would be vendors waiting to write and support it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US Navy denies it pirated 550K copies of software, says c... by mcbits on Tuesday November 15, 2016 @10:45AM (#12958919)

If the lawsuit actually ends up costing billions or hundreds of millions, they could have funded an open VR project on a scale larger than all of Ubuntu instead.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US Navy denies it pirated 550K copies of software, says c... by tener on Tuesday November 15, 2016 @12:59PM (#12960411)

I doubt their plan was to get sued.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US Navy denies it pirated 550K copies of software, says c... by mcbits on Tuesday November 15, 2016 @01:37PM (#12960853)

No, but they were probably planning (originally) to license the software. Maybe not at the full $1,000 retail or for 550,000+ computers... I wonder how the software would compare to the commercial offering if they had hired 100 independent contractors at $150k to develop it in the open.

Incidentally, it looks like development was funded in part by the German government, but I can't find anything to indicate how much. http://www.bitmanagement.com/en/press/2013/bsstudio

[ Parent | on HN ]