Open Source Systems Application in the Navy - Essay Example

Open Source Systems Application in the Navy Section: Open Source Systems Application in the Navy Introduction Free software and Open Source Software are often treated as same thing but there are important differences between them with respect to licensing and use. However, we can simply say that Free Software (FS) are products distributed free of charge and (OSS) Open Sources Software are product of a unique development methodology. Although FS is always available as OSS does not necessarily mean it is always free. This is the reason why we have to refer to F/OSS to accommodate related and interchangeable method of software development. It is a relatively new way to build and deploy large software systems, which are different in various ways from the customary principles, and procedures encouraged in software engineering (Scacchi et. al, 2006, p.1). As the popularity of open source software increases in the public sector, government are taking necessary actions to gather more information and justification to include open source in high security environments like the military. Selecting the navy as the military branch for open source application, the paper will going to identify the key stakeholders and present the issues involve in the development and implementation in this particular environment. Issues in Developing Open Source Systems in the Navy As software becomes increasingly network-based and evolved towards services-based architectures, communication through open and standardized interfaces is now very common. These interfaces are normally made available with OSS reference implementations. This type of service-based architecture once implemented naturally decomposes into a modular design which is free to improve and evolve independently following standard interfaces (Herz et. al. (2006, p.15). Software services such as COTS (Commercial Off-The-Shelf), GOTS (Government Off-The-Shelf), and Open Source maybe selected, evolved, and later replace for newer and better technology. On condition that these software are properly applied, it will allow the core technologies to grow while reducing interface complexity and decreasing technological and financial risk by removing cascading software dependencies and eliminating re-engineering when new requirements are initiated. In order to obtain the full benefits of open standards and interfaces, the DoD (Department of Defence) of any country for that matter, must change closed systems proprietary API (Advance Programmers Interfaces) with open interfaces which will serve as the starting point for more evolved implementations (Herz et. al., 2006, p.16). According to Herz (2006), using the data from sourceforge.net, 10,000 open source projects are accessible for public use and lots of them provides advanced and robust solutions in their respective area of functioning. OSS primary opportunities includes IT Infrastructure, communication, and advanced Geospatial infrastructure that are frequent requirements of many modern defence systems. Instead of subsidizing the development of existing private sector codes using funds and other resources, the government has legal and valid military reasons to encourage or require OTD (Open Technology Development) that have proven successful external application. This will allow particular systems to evolve more rapidly in response to rising threats and capabilities (p.17). One major issue in this area is the commercial return of investment even when national interest and security is concern. However, the DoD in the United States took the initiative to carry out advance projects through DARPA (Defence Advanced Research Project Agency) and awarding of cost plus contract to alleviate the risk and set up an effective business model for government's contractors developing exclusive and multifaceted systems for national objectives. However, the innovation on information technology is still coming from external sources. There has been a delay in adopting the technology and corresponding practices and the slow rate of processing and approval further hinders the progress. In the United Kingdom back in 2003, BAE Systems, a major UK defence contractor decided to standardise future development on Microsoft Windows resulting in a joint venture with Naval Combat Management Systems (CMS) specialist AMS Limited that is now known as SELEX Sistemi Integrati. The venture worked on the implementation of a Windows 200-based CMS for the type 45 Destroyer. The implementation was met with strong internal opposition from some AMS technical staff. The group argued that Windows is not a suitable foundation for the naval command system and BAE's UNIX expertise made open source the most coherent and practical way forward. They also added that Windows is a proprietary technology owned by a foreign corporation and has various security and safety flaws that are not even warranted by Microsoft. The decision to use Windows 2000 on a Destroyer they said; is ignorance of established engineering practice. Even with enough evidence, AMS to date is still entrusting the Royal Navy to Windows-based CMS (Lettice, 2003, p.1) In September of 2000, Muse Virtual Presence won the Royal navy contract to deliver new close-range gunnery simulators to the Naval Recruitment and Training Agency (NRTA). The simulators using VR (Virtual Reality) technologies although operates on Windows NT will use open hardware and software standards design and philosophy (Manchester, 2000, p.1-2). In related news released by BAE systems in 2006, they announced the launching of Talisman, the next-generation (UUV) Unmanned Underwater Vehicle. The vehicle is part of the Undersea Defence Technology program and again will run on open system architecture with Windows as the operating system. In addition, BAE Systems is slowly moving forward to Open Systems or Open Source in the Defence Systems and is now dealing with the issues and challenges using Open Source Systems (BAE Systems Press Release, 2006). Following IBM's move in 1998 adopting an open source server product Apache for its server machine, the government particularly the United States Department of Defence is also very optimistic in open source software's economic and cost savings benefits for its military systems (Fitzgerald and Basset, 2003, p.24). Security is one critical issue in any software platform. According to Whitlock (2001), one argument is that open system's sources are open for everyone to read and therefore hiding the source improves security. Another notable argument is that open source has freely available blueprints that can easily be use as a guide for attacks. However, author Eric S. Raymond of the "New Hacker's Dictionary" as presented by Whitlock (2001) says closed systems leads to a false sense of security. He added that closed systems secrecy guarantees honesty of the people who wrote it and the security of an algorithm does not depend on its secrecy. Open source software depends on the secrecy of the encoding method than the secrecy of keys and it is the only option for secure operating system. The reason is closed sources are not verifiable for secure coding and often complicated to fix when a bug is discovered. Take for instance the case of Microsoft Programmers who inserted malicious codes in FrontPage Web Server software and the defect was only discovered after four years. The fact that binary codes are in non-readable form kept this security breach undiscovered for a long time contrary to the principle of open source where everybody has the right to read, restructure, amend, and freely use the software. Malicious code insertion in an open source software is not likely to escape detection and probably impossible to happen (Whitlock, 2001, p. 1-4). On the other hand, U.S. DoD released a memo putting open source software in the same field with proprietary software and issued a warning to comply with lawful licensing requirements particularly those using GPL (General Public License). The memo also reminds OSS developers to ensure compliance with COTS and Government Off-The-Shelf policies, and comply with validation and evaluation requirements of NST and Information Systems Security Policy. They must also make their source code available, issue a copyright notice, and warranty disclaimers (Whitlock, 2001, p.1-4). Key Stakeholders and their Individual Motivation Looking at the open source scene in the United States and the United Kingdom related to naval software projects, we find key stakeholders from government, private organizations, developers, and individuals. The office of the Acquisition Technology and Logistics under the U.S. Department of Defence plays a major role in the country's security policy and military advancement. They are the one responsible for acquiring or adopting the open source systems in their defence mechanism (Yeates, 2006, p.1). Following the rank is the Defence Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) where funding for OSS projects is allocated. Next is the Naval Oceanographic Office (NAVOCEANO), the Navy's science and Information Technology arm and coordinator for Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (NCRADA-01-008) between Open Source Software Institute (OSSI), a non-profit organization that encourages the development and functioning of OSS within government and academic world. The software development is supported by major developers Linux and Sun Microsystems (NCRADA-01-008, 2003, p.1). In the U.K. scene, major defence contractor BAE Systems works with CMS specialist SELEX Sistemi Integrati (formerly AMS) who recently worked on the Combat Management Systems of the type 45 Royal Navy Destroyer. Although Open Source Systems are not fully adopted in the U.K. Royal Navy, BAE Systems is slowly adopting open architecture for most part of its advanced naval defence system. The government's motivation to adopt open source development methodologies is its importance to the National Security and National Interest. The main reason is the OSS capability in adapting rapidly to user needs that makes the industry compete based on ideas and execution rather than product lock-in. More importantly, it enables the Department of Defence to further secure the infrastructure and enhance security through better understanding of the actual codes installed in their networks (Yeates, 2006, p1). National Security and domination of Information Technology dictate the political or ideological reasons behind their actions. Open Source Software use particularly in the military means enhancing defence, warfare accuracy, and most of all political control in the region. The defence contractor's motivation is apparently for economic and business growth. There maybe a political motivation but there is no apparent evidence or indication in recent reports. Patriotism possibly is one reason but we had better not count it as motivation because defence contractor's services are rarely exclusive to one country. The real player in promoting Open Source System throughout the military is the Open Source Software Institute. As a non-profit organization, their motivation is simply to enable the public and government to understand the benefits of open-source systems. The political motivation perhaps is not in the organization itself but on the individuals who represents it. Consider the popularity and political connections gained from promoting OSS worldwide particularly in the defence department of the two powerful nations on earth. Contrary to the OSSI initiative, in one article written by McCullagh (2003) for CNET News, an organization in the U.S. known as ISC or Initiative for Software Choice is pushing hard to persuade government agencies here and abroad not to unjustifiably favour open source over proprietary software. The basis for such initiative is complex and diverse says McCullagh (2003) but some governments cited Microsoft's luxurious licensing terms made them favour open source software and some says it is influenced by Anti-American sentiments not to patronize Microsoft products. Open Source Software developers, that are conceivably advocates of OSS, perform their tasks with the motivation of developing powerful free and open source software that can compete with proprietary systems. Their motivation is more on technical competition, a crusade to bring the monopoly of proprietary software down on its knees. OSS License in Application Area GPL or General Public License is the most popular of the Open Source licenses and it is the one acquired by the U.S. Department of Defence for their offices and military with Linux operating system installed (Olaysrud, 2003, p1). On the other hand, the United Kingdom does not have such license on their operating systems due to proprietary nature of Windows 2000. As mentioned earlier, although they are using hardware and software created in the philosophy of open standards and design, BAE Systems is still not convinced to install popular open source software to their system (BAE Systems Press Release, 2006). In the near future if the BAE's study concludes in favour of OSS then the license will probably acquired as GPL. Studying the nature of GPL will tell us what are the restrictions imposed on its application area. The GPL allows copying and redistribution if the developer incorporates a copyright notice and a disclaimer warranties. Developer may charge for the cost of distribution and may offer free warranty protection. They can also alter or do some derivative works on the software provided it will be for own use. If there is a need to distribute a plagiaristic work, the developer should meet certain conditions such as identifying the work as modified, license it as GPL, and provide the license information "interactively if the program normally runs interactively" (Fitzgerald and Basset, 2003, p.14). The responsibility to license under GPL does not necessarily apply to independent works that will purely run on GPL licensed works. This means you may distribute the work in executable forms provided the source codes is also distributed along with the object codes or the source code is presented by a written offer valid for a duration of at least 3 years and make the source code available for a price lower than the distribution cost (Fitzgerald and Basset, 2003, p.15). According to Gunton (2006, p.1) GPL is seen as viral because writing code using open source software automatically makes your code OSS. This is indeed scary for companies who do not want to expose their techniques and codes to their opponent. In addition, you can be charge violating the GPL by simply linking to OSS libraries. The theory of a license that requires individual to contribute back into the community is a great idea but it is not entirely possible in real life. Actually, people tend to hide their sources and techniques and they will try to get away with it whenever they can. However, the question of GPL being a viral can be answered by simply reading the available user rights. The GPL clearly says that if you create as software that is derived from other programs then that united work must be distributed under these terms. In essence, derivative works do not in fact happen by accident. The developer of the derived work received the program accompanied by clear-cut terms of use and must therefore read and understand those terms. Ignorance is not an excuse. You can actually choose to distribute your work under the GPL terms or you cannot use the GPL software and choose a different license. If GPL is viral then you would have no choice. Let us remember that GPL clearly affirms developer's rights to sections of a program they create and GPL only applies to combined works as a whole thus keeping individual rights intact. Furthermore, given a permission to use a property does not mean transfer of ownership or a right to let another party to use it. It is therefore clear that the terms and conditions stated in GPL are not anyway viral. Conclusion Open Sources Software are indeed applicable to the navy and there are many indications that the development will continue in years to come. The roles played by the key stakeholders are very important to the systematic success of OSS. The Open Source Institute should continue their initiative in educating the public and government. Although reports shows that the U.K.'s Royal Navy is still using proprietary operating system and there is no evidence of on-going OSS development in open source repositories, there is a strong possibility that the current trend in the United States defence system will influence their counterparts all over the globe. They will soon follow the trend and ultimately enjoy the benefits of open source system. The issues surrounding the implementation and development of open source software such as security and licensing can be resolve through OSSI by intensifying informational campaign. There is always a need to educate the public and governments on the true nature of OSS. Let them know how this free and distributable software can actually change and improve the future of Information Technology and ultimately our lives. References BAE Systems, 2006, "BAE Systems leads with the Talisman at Undersea Defence Technology Europe", News Release, online, 03/27/07, http://www.baesystems.com/ Newsroom/NewsReleases/press_26062006.html Fitzgerald and Basset, 2003, "Legal Issues Relating to Free and Open Source Software", Essays in Technology Policy and Law Volume 1, Queensland University School of Law, ISBN 0-9751394-0-1 Gunton Neil, 2006, Viral license not business-friendly", Open Source Pros and Cons, online, 03/28/07, http://www.neilgunton.com/doc/page/o=lt&page_id=159&v=2q Herz, Lucas, and Scott, 2006, "Roadmap Plan", Open Technology Development, Office of the Security Review, Department of Defence, United States of America Lettice John, 2004, "OSS torpedoed: Royal Navy will run on Windows for Warships: Combat management contractor opts for Win2k as base OS", The Register, online, 03/27/07, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09/06/ams_goes_windows_for_warships/ Manchester, 2000," MUSE Virtual Presence wins Royal Navy contract to develop virtual reality simulators ", The Primeur Weekly, online, 03/27/07, http://www.hoise.com/primeur/ 00/articles/weekly/AE-PR-10-00-24.html McCullagh Declan, 2003, "The politics of open-source software, CNET News, online, 03/28/07,http://news.com.com/2010-1071_3-1025268.html NCRADA-01-008, 2003, Executive Summary Public release, Open Source Software Institute, online, 03/28/07, www.oss-institute.org Olaysrud Thor, 2003, "Defence Department Issues Open Source Policy", Internet News, online, 03/27/07, http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/2216311 Scacchi et. al., 2006, "Understanding Free/Open Source Software Development Processes", Software. Process Improve. Practice, 2006, 11: 95-105 Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com), DOI: 10.1002/spip.255, Institute for Software Research, University of California, Irvine, USA, Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Whitlock Natalie, 2001, "The Security Implications of Open Source Software, Casaflora Communications", IBM, online, 03/27/07, http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks /linux/library/l-oss.html Yeates Stuart, 2006, "Open Source in the military", University of Oxford, online, 03/28/07, http://connect.educause.edu/blog/stuartyeates/open_source_in_the_military/2507time=1174908272 Read More