Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they were really trying to secure the code, shouldn't the bill be called the "Securing Software Act"? It's not like closed source software is magically immune to vulnerabilities
This isn't about fixing anyone's code, it's about securing the software stack that the government is running. They already have well developed processes for addressing closed source software.
'Securing Open Source Software Act' introduced to US Senate
161–170 of 187 posts
Re: 'Securing Open Source Software Act' introduced to US Senate
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
Respectfully, you have a too-reasonable hunch of how decisions are made at the executive level, and because of that, you're reaching an incorrect conclusion. The primary factor driving the decision making process is not cost but risk. Many fail to remember the lengths to which companies like Microsoft, Oracle, Sun and others went to create FUD around the adoption of OSS in the public sector. It involved lobbyists, ma…
Government contractors expensive tools are already heavily using open source tools. The whole log4j scandal that this bill is in response to is perfect evidence of exactly that. It is not in the interest of 'proprietary' software vendors to fearmonger about OSS libraries. They too use OSS libraries just like everyone else does today. It isn't 1995 anymore where a proprietary piece of software can run on a full stack…
Re: 'Securing Open Source Software Act' introduced to US Senate
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you demand that every screwmaker make aircraft-grade screws? Aircraft makers need screws and it would be very convenient to them to be able to go down to any hardware store and just buy whatever screw they want since they are all up to spec. No need to evaluate their suppliers since everybody is required to make things up to their demanding standards. The problem with this is that not everybody needs expensive air…
I'm quite sure that screws are indeed something that, if made in a shoddy way, would have legal repercussions for those producing them. That's the norm - it's software that's weird for not having that. I would actually expect screws are even rated for specific work. Also, people sell screws, so the analogy really makes no sense. I'm not suggesting that software developers be required to do anything if they're just wr…
"THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM “AS IS” WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION."
If the quality of a package is not positively asserted, then it must be assumed to be hobbyist-grade regardless of how others wrongly treat it, how convenient it would be to assume it is not, or even if the quality is high but no explicit positive guarantee has been made to that effect. It is ultimately the responsibility of the users of a package to verify it is fit for purpose which demands either a positive, legally binding guarantee from the package creator or a assessment of the package itself (which would be easy if the quality is high, but no explicit guarantee was provided). To use a package while expecting guarantees on its function when it explicitly disclaims any guarantees is to use the package wrongly no matter how many others may do so and it is a problem with the user of the package, not the creator of the package who accurately advertised the quality of their package. It is the recognition of this fact and the usage of components that have actual guarantees about fitness for purpose that distinguish civil engineering from software development, not the quality of the underlying components; the quality of the underlying components follows naturally once liability is accepted and guarantees are required.
Re: 'Securing Open Source Software Act' introduced to US Senate
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
Different types of issues with different solutions. When you have a support contract with the original developer of a piece of code, you can demand the original developer fix the code.
That same solution still works for FOSS, you just actually need to pay for it. The situation for FOSS is even better because you also have the option of paying any other person to fix the code. Hopefully that's kinda what this bill does, though?
Re: 'Securing Open Source Software Act' introduced to US Senate
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't it very obvious that the US government has a vested interested in software security? I see no reason whatsoever to believe that this is some sly attempt to make FOSS more expensive as opposed to the US trying to solve a very real problem.
If it were truly about software security it wouldn't be limited to open source. Whatever standards make a piece of software secure doesn't change when it's developed by a company or a community, so what's the reason they're making the distinction in law? For that reason I agree with the conclusion of the person above, things don't happen in capitalist societies without someone getting paid for it.
Yeah? Someone paid you to post this?
Re: 'Securing Open Source Software Act' introduced to US Senate
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe increased popularity to the legislator in question? Surely no bill comes without some ulterior motive.
Increased popularity isn't an ulterior (meaning hidden) motive, it's explicitly the foundation for democracy. The whole premise is that we exploit human selfishness for net good by setting up a system that (in theory) rewards making the largest number of people happy. There's nothing ulterior about that motive, it's the point. Where things go wrong is when money becomes involved, because then the system rewards makin…
Re: 'Securing Open Source Software Act' introduced to US Senate
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe increased popularity to the legislator in question? Surely no bill comes without some ulterior motive.
Increased popularity isn't an ulterior (meaning hidden) motive, it's explicitly the foundation for democracy. The whole premise is that we exploit human selfishness for net good by setting up a system that (in theory) rewards making the largest number of people happy. There's nothing ulterior about that motive, it's the point. Where things go wrong is when money becomes involved, because then the system rewards makin…
Re: 'Securing Open Source Software Act' introduced to US Senate
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't about fixing anyone's code, it's about securing the software stack that the government is running. They already have well developed processes for addressing closed source software.
Why can't those same processes be used for open source code then? If we assume those processes can't(or don't) apply to open source software then am I to believe that OpenSSL has been running the internet without any scrutiny for the last decade?
For example, if your proprietary software has a bug, you call the developer and demand they come into your office and fix it under warranty.
Doesn’t work that way for some dependency downloaded from GitHub.
Re: 'Securing Open Source Software Act' introduced to US Senate
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
Increased popularity isn't an ulterior (meaning hidden) motive, it's explicitly the foundation for democracy. The whole premise is that we exploit human selfishness for net good by setting up a system that (in theory) rewards making the largest number of people happy. There's nothing ulterior about that motive, it's the point. Where things go wrong is when money becomes involved, because then the system rewards makin…
Why is buying votes by using government power/money good, and buying congress votes through lobbying bad?
> Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
Re: 'Securing Open Source Software Act' introduced to US Senate
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why can't those same processes be used for open source code then? If we assume those processes can't(or don't) apply to open source software then am I to believe that OpenSSL has been running the internet without any scrutiny for the last decade?
This is about risk management process, not computer science process. The businesses processes are different. For example, if your proprietary software has a bug, you call the developer and demand they come into your office and fix it under warranty. Doesn’t work that way for some dependency downloaded from GitHub.