Do the licences permit GPL- and BSD-licensed applications to be used for government work?Can I change the license of a GPL derived work to be more restrictive regarding version upgrades?Derived work of BSD licensed software, how do I indicate this?How does the BSD 2-Clause License copyright notice work?Is the Facebook BSD+Patents licence (aka “The React Licence”) compatible with the GPL?How is the BSD GPL-compatible?How does GPL work for articles on a website?Using GPL licensed library over a service for non-GPL softwaresWhat's the usual procedure when using MIT or BSD-2-Clause licensed source code with something like `<script src="…`, `require(…` or `import …`?Can I take MIT licensed code and distribute it under BSD?Can the OpenJDK runtime be used to run third-party Java applications?
Is there a general term for the items in a directory?
How do I safety check that there is no light in Darkroom / Darkbag?
Export economy of Mars
Python π = 1 + (1/2) + (1/3) + (1/4) - (1/5) + (1/6) + (1/7) + (1/8) + (1/9) - (1/10) ...1748 Euler
Why is “deal 6 damage” a legit phrase?
Can birds evolve without trees?
Were there any unmanned expeditions to the moon that returned to Earth prior to Apollo?
A conjectural trigonometric identity
Why did the United States not resort to nuclear weapons in Vietnam?
Difference between Chance constraints and logical constraints
Is Norway in the Single Market?
Applying for mortgage when living together but only one will be on the mortgage
Skipping same old introductions
Being told my "network" isn't PCI Complaint. I don't even have a server! Do I have to comply?
What do the screens say after you are set free?
What is the reason behind water not falling from a bucket at the top of loop?
What is the most 'environmentally friendly' way to learn to fly?
Word for giving preference to the oldest child
Does KNN have a loss function?
Pre-Greek θάλασσα "thalassa" and Turkish talaz
The grades of the students in a class
Is it really a problem to declare that a visitor to the UK is my "girlfriend", in terms of her successfully getting a Standard Visitor visa?
Is it moral to remove/hide certain parts of a photo, as a photographer?
"Will flex for food". What does this phrase mean?
Do the licences permit GPL- and BSD-licensed applications to be used for government work?
Can I change the license of a GPL derived work to be more restrictive regarding version upgrades?Derived work of BSD licensed software, how do I indicate this?How does the BSD 2-Clause License copyright notice work?Is the Facebook BSD+Patents licence (aka “The React Licence”) compatible with the GPL?How is the BSD GPL-compatible?How does GPL work for articles on a website?Using GPL licensed library over a service for non-GPL softwaresWhat's the usual procedure when using MIT or BSD-2-Clause licensed source code with something like `<script src="…`, `require(…` or `import …`?Can I take MIT licensed code and distribute it under BSD?Can the OpenJDK runtime be used to run third-party Java applications?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
I want to use GIMP, Inkscape, and Lightzone for work in a government environment. Not modify the software, just use the applications. Does the license allow me to use the software in such environment?
I'm pretty sure this is allowable, I just can't find anything stating it explicitly
gpl bsd
edited Jul 26 at 13:47
MadHatter
11.5k1 gold badge22 silver badges46 bronze badges
asked Jul 23 at 19:12
Al LelopathAl Lelopath
1961 silver badge7 bronze badges
|
show 2 more comments
I want to use GIMP, Inkscape, and Lightzone for work in a government environment. Not modify the software, just use the applications. Does the license allow me to use the software in such environment?
I'm pretty sure this is allowable, I just can't find anything stating it explicitly
gpl bsd
edited Jul 26 at 13:47
MadHatter
11.5k1 gold badge22 silver badges46 bronze badges
asked Jul 23 at 19:12
Al LelopathAl Lelopath
1961 silver badge7 bronze badges
15
Which department of which government? I'm pretty sure they don't all have the same rules.
– Philip Kendall
Jul 23 at 19:55
15
Perhaps you could clarify whether you meant "does the licence allow me to use the software for government work" or "does the government allow me to use the software for government work"?
– MadHatter
Jul 24 at 12:06
2
More fundamentally, which government? World? Federal? State? Province? Municipality?
– James McLeod
Jul 24 at 16:08
2
Al, please edit the question to clarify.
– prl
Jul 25 at 20:46
1
Note that BSD originates from the University of California, Berkeley, which is a government-run institution.
– Justin Lardinois
Jul 26 at 0:08
|
show 2 more comments
I want to use GIMP, Inkscape, and Lightzone for work in a government environment. Not modify the software, just use the applications. Does the license allow me to use the software in such environment?
I'm pretty sure this is allowable, I just can't find anything stating it explicitly
gpl bsd
edited Jul 26 at 13:47
MadHatter
11.5k1 gold badge22 silver badges46 bronze badges
asked Jul 23 at 19:12
Al LelopathAl Lelopath
1961 silver badge7 bronze badges
I want to use GIMP, Inkscape, and Lightzone for work in a government environment. Not modify the software, just use the applications. Does the license allow me to use the software in such environment?
I'm pretty sure this is allowable, I just can't find anything stating it explicitly
gpl bsd
gpl bsd
edited Jul 26 at 13:47
MadHatter
11.5k1 gold badge22 silver badges46 bronze badges
asked Jul 23 at 19:12
Al LelopathAl Lelopath
1961 silver badge7 bronze badges
edited Jul 26 at 13:47
MadHatter
11.5k1 gold badge22 silver badges46 bronze badges
asked Jul 23 at 19:12
Al LelopathAl Lelopath
1961 silver badge7 bronze badges
edited Jul 26 at 13:47
MadHatter
11.5k1 gold badge22 silver badges46 bronze badges
edited Jul 26 at 13:47
MadHatter
11.5k1 gold badge22 silver badges46 bronze badges
edited Jul 26 at 13:47
MadHatter
11.5k1 gold badge22 silver badges46 bronze badges
11.5k1 gold badge22 silver badges46 bronze badges
asked Jul 23 at 19:12
Al LelopathAl Lelopath
1961 silver badge7 bronze badges
asked Jul 23 at 19:12
Al LelopathAl Lelopath
1961 silver badge7 bronze badges
asked Jul 23 at 19:12
Al LelopathAl Lelopath
1961 silver badge7 bronze badges
1961 silver badge7 bronze badges
15
Which department of which government? I'm pretty sure they don't all have the same rules.
– Philip Kendall
Jul 23 at 19:55
15
Perhaps you could clarify whether you meant "does the licence allow me to use the software for government work" or "does the government allow me to use the software for government work"?
– MadHatter
Jul 24 at 12:06
2
More fundamentally, which government? World? Federal? State? Province? Municipality?
– James McLeod
Jul 24 at 16:08
2
Al, please edit the question to clarify.
– prl
Jul 25 at 20:46
1
Note that BSD originates from the University of California, Berkeley, which is a government-run institution.
– Justin Lardinois
Jul 26 at 0:08
|
show 2 more comments
15
Which department of which government? I'm pretty sure they don't all have the same rules.
– Philip Kendall
Jul 23 at 19:55
15
Perhaps you could clarify whether you meant "does the licence allow me to use the software for government work" or "does the government allow me to use the software for government work"?
– MadHatter
Jul 24 at 12:06
2
More fundamentally, which government? World? Federal? State? Province? Municipality?
– James McLeod
Jul 24 at 16:08
2
Al, please edit the question to clarify.
– prl
Jul 25 at 20:46
1
Note that BSD originates from the University of California, Berkeley, which is a government-run institution.
– Justin Lardinois
Jul 26 at 0:08
15
15
Which department of which government? I'm pretty sure they don't all have the same rules.
– Philip Kendall
Jul 23 at 19:55
Which department of which government? I'm pretty sure they don't all have the same rules.
– Philip Kendall
Jul 23 at 19:55
15
15
Perhaps you could clarify whether you meant "does the licence allow me to use the software for government work" or "does the government allow me to use the software for government work"?
– MadHatter
Jul 24 at 12:06
Perhaps you could clarify whether you meant "does the licence allow me to use the software for government work" or "does the government allow me to use the software for government work"?
– MadHatter
Jul 24 at 12:06
2
2
More fundamentally, which government? World? Federal? State? Province? Municipality?
– James McLeod
Jul 24 at 16:08
More fundamentally, which government? World? Federal? State? Province? Municipality?
– James McLeod
Jul 24 at 16:08
2
2
Al, please edit the question to clarify.
– prl
Jul 25 at 20:46
Al, please edit the question to clarify.
– prl
Jul 25 at 20:46
1
1
Note that BSD originates from the University of California, Berkeley, which is a government-run institution.
– Justin Lardinois
Jul 26 at 0:08
Note that BSD originates from the University of California, Berkeley, which is a government-run institution.
– Justin Lardinois
Jul 26 at 0:08
|
show 2 more comments
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
Let me quote the relevant section from the GPL v3 license, emphasis mine:
2. Basic Permissions.
All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program. The output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a covered work. This License acknowledges your rights of fair use or other equivalent, as provided by copyright law.
You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force. You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you.
The wording of the BSD license makes this implicit:
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
So there's nothing from the GPL and BSD licenses preventing you from running the programs in any scenario, and the GPL even reaffirms so.
Also, note that both GPL and BSD are OSI-approved licenses; that means that the license complies with the Open Source Definition, which states:
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
Therefore, this assures that GPL- and BSD-licensed software can be used in any field / kind of work, including governmental.
A different question is whether your particular workplace/scenario/organization allows you to run GPL/BSD licensed software.
And, of course, if you were distributing the programs or allowing other people to use it, the situation would be different. Since you're talking about desktop productivity/graphics software (GIMP, inkscape, etc) this is not the case.
answered Jul 24 at 9:53
IvanSanchezIvanSanchez
2264 bronze badges
add a comment |
The definition of Free Software includes anyone being able to use the software for any purpose (any field of endeavor and no discrimination against persons or groups). So no version of the GPL, or any other Free Software license can prevent the DoD or any other government entity from using the software.
Note that some software or the things that some software does could be banned in various countries or perhaps under international treaty, but that isn't really license related.
answered Jul 23 at 22:01
ivanivanivanivan
6901 gold badge3 silver badges8 bronze badges
5
Actually, no, "free" software cannot necessarily be used for any purpose. It's subject to the restrictions of its license, so for example you can't use GNU Readline in a proprietary application you distribute to others only in binary form. Some open-source licenses even prevent you from using the code in web applications for which you don't distribute the source code. Open source is only "always free" in the sense that you never have to pay money for the source code.
– Curt J. Sampson
Jul 24 at 5:31
29
@CurtJ.Sampson, that is not use, but distribution. If you have source code under a non-free licence that uses libreadline, you can link against the library and use it legally, but you are not permitted to give the binaries to someone else (but you could give out the non-free source and instructions to link it).
– Simon Richter
Jul 24 at 8:07
6
@Curt While "use" is definitely an overloaded term, it seems that "use" here means strictly "execute" (since that's the sense in which "use" is used in the body of the question, which does not include distribution and explicitly excludes modification). This is a different category of action from modification or distribution, which you discuss correctly in your comment. The disagreement here is purely about what actions are covered under the semantics of "use", not what the consequences of each action might be. (Note the network-app case you mention is modification-activated.)
– apsillers♦
Jul 24 at 10:52
7
@CurtJ.Sampson, that is the definition of "use" from the GPL. Running the software on your server and letting users interact with it also counts as "use" and is generally unrestricted, which is why the AGPL exists.
– Simon Richter
Jul 24 at 11:44
3
@CurtJ.Sampson - you notice of course that I qualified it with the terms from the Open Source Definition - any field of endeavor and no discrimination against persons or groups.
– ivanivan
Jul 24 at 12:05
|
show 4 more comments
Different organizations have different policies. Google is apparently fine with GPL software, but doesn't permit AGPL. Facebook seems fine with both, but anything under the SSPL or with a Commons Clause addendum is right out. My company is fine with MIT/BSD/Apache, GPL, and AGPL but bans proprietary software.
So I don't think there is a hard and fast rule that we can point to; you will have to ask your employer what the applicable policy is.
answered Jul 23 at 20:00
MadHatterMadHatter
11.5k1 gold badge22 silver badges46 bronze badges
7
While this is good overview at the organizations' side of the matter, I think (though maybe I'm wrong) that the OP is asking if the licenses themselves prohibit use in a government context.
– apsillers♦
Jul 23 at 20:39
2
@apsillers an excellent point, though it had never occurred to me that anyone could ask that. Fortunately, ivanivan has done an excellent job answering that interpretation of the question. Perhaps the OP could clarify which (s)he meant?
– MadHatter
Jul 24 at 6:55
1
For the record, there's a big difference in policies depending on whether you're talking about using software/library as part of your own product/service (i.e. integration/linking), or if you're simply talking about installing and using the software. This answer seems to be talking about the former, whereas OP specifically asked about the latter.
– A C
Jul 25 at 6:24
@AC I agree that policies will likely be different for use vs. distribute, but this answer covers simple usage as well as distribution.
– MadHatter
Jul 25 at 9:51
add a comment |
Whilst others have covered the legal aspects, I think it's worth noting there are numerous real-world examples of government agencies successfully using open-source licences without issue.
Germany's government is quite fond of open source solutions:
the federal government of Germany has decided to partner with
Nextcloud–a popular open source file sync and collaborative service
provider.
https://fossbytes.com/german-government-open-source-cloud-nextcloud/
The International Space Station, and thus NASA, uses Linux:
the “dozens of laptops” will make the change to Debian 6. These
laptops will join many other systems aboard the ISS that already run
various flavors of Linux, such as RedHat and Scientific Linux.
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/155392-international-space-station-switches-from-windows-to-linux-for-improved-reliability
Ubuntu was even approved for use by the federal government:
Canonical's Ubuntu has become third Linux operating system approved by
the General Services Administration for use by federal purchasers
https://www.pcworld.com/article/190264/Government_Ubuntu.html
The US Navy Oceanographic Office uses Linux:
On a grander scale, many federal agencies are also using Linux. One
example is the US Navy Oceanographic Office (NAVOCEANO), which
collects and analyzes the world's oceans for the benefit of both the
Navy and other Department of Defense agencies, is currently using
Linux in certain environments.
https://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6217
The UK government even encourages the adoption of open standards, including ODF and ODF-compatible software, such as LibreOffice:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/using-open-document-formats-odf-in-your-organisation
A number of governments even open-source their own works:
The UK government has it's own dedicated open-source licence:
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/
The US government in 2014 trialled open-sourcing some of it's code (for internal government reuse):
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160808/17314335186/us-government-now-has-official-open-source-software-policy.shtml
The DoD and USAF even offered up a lightweight Linux OS:
https://www.geek.com/chips/u-s-dept-of-defense-offers-up-tiny-secure-linux-distribution-1405659/
There's plenty of other examples which you can find. I even work in a government organisation and we use a variety of GPL and open-source style licences (including Ubuntu and CentOS). It's advisable you read and comply with the terms of each given licence as stated.
answered Jul 24 at 13:40
SSight3SSight3
2512 bronze badges
2
Additional example: France provides an annually updated list of FLOSS software recommended for use in administration. Here is the 2019 version: mim-libre.fr/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/sill-2019-pub.pdf. Various branches of the administration also publish their custom software in their dedicated GitHub & GitLab accounts.
– Droplet
Jul 26 at 10:08
add a comment |
In general, yes. However, some government agencies place additional requirements on their software, either by policy or by law.
Example: The USG often requires FIPS certification for cryptographic modules.
Obviously, there may be other types of certification for other use cases. I don't believe there are any for graphics editing, but I don't work in that industry.
Certification costs are often borne by the developer, so most FOSS packages aren't certified. This is part of the reason why OpenSSL and Red Hat are important parts of the ecosystem; they allow penetration into regulated sectors.
In general GPL and BSD are permissible, but it depends on the specific industry, policies, and laws.
answered Jul 24 at 20:39
DoubleDDoubleD
1511 bronze badge
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "619"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fopensource.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f8557%2fdo-the-licences-permit-gpl-and-bsd-licensed-applications-to-be-used-for-governm%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Let me quote the relevant section from the GPL v3 license, emphasis mine:
2. Basic Permissions.
All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program. The output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a covered work. This License acknowledges your rights of fair use or other equivalent, as provided by copyright law.
You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force. You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you.
The wording of the BSD license makes this implicit:
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
So there's nothing from the GPL and BSD licenses preventing you from running the programs in any scenario, and the GPL even reaffirms so.
Also, note that both GPL and BSD are OSI-approved licenses; that means that the license complies with the Open Source Definition, which states:
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
Therefore, this assures that GPL- and BSD-licensed software can be used in any field / kind of work, including governmental.
A different question is whether your particular workplace/scenario/organization allows you to run GPL/BSD licensed software.
And, of course, if you were distributing the programs or allowing other people to use it, the situation would be different. Since you're talking about desktop productivity/graphics software (GIMP, inkscape, etc) this is not the case.
answered Jul 24 at 9:53
IvanSanchezIvanSanchez
2264 bronze badges
add a comment |
Let me quote the relevant section from the GPL v3 license, emphasis mine:
2. Basic Permissions.
All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program. The output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a covered work. This License acknowledges your rights of fair use or other equivalent, as provided by copyright law.
You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force. You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you.
The wording of the BSD license makes this implicit:
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
So there's nothing from the GPL and BSD licenses preventing you from running the programs in any scenario, and the GPL even reaffirms so.
Also, note that both GPL and BSD are OSI-approved licenses; that means that the license complies with the Open Source Definition, which states:
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
Therefore, this assures that GPL- and BSD-licensed software can be used in any field / kind of work, including governmental.
A different question is whether your particular workplace/scenario/organization allows you to run GPL/BSD licensed software.
And, of course, if you were distributing the programs or allowing other people to use it, the situation would be different. Since you're talking about desktop productivity/graphics software (GIMP, inkscape, etc) this is not the case.
answered Jul 24 at 9:53
IvanSanchezIvanSanchez
2264 bronze badges
add a comment |
Let me quote the relevant section from the GPL v3 license, emphasis mine:
2. Basic Permissions.
All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program. The output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a covered work. This License acknowledges your rights of fair use or other equivalent, as provided by copyright law.
You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force. You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you.
The wording of the BSD license makes this implicit:
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
So there's nothing from the GPL and BSD licenses preventing you from running the programs in any scenario, and the GPL even reaffirms so.
Also, note that both GPL and BSD are OSI-approved licenses; that means that the license complies with the Open Source Definition, which states:
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
Therefore, this assures that GPL- and BSD-licensed software can be used in any field / kind of work, including governmental.
A different question is whether your particular workplace/scenario/organization allows you to run GPL/BSD licensed software.
And, of course, if you were distributing the programs or allowing other people to use it, the situation would be different. Since you're talking about desktop productivity/graphics software (GIMP, inkscape, etc) this is not the case.
answered Jul 24 at 9:53
IvanSanchezIvanSanchez
2264 bronze badges
Let me quote the relevant section from the GPL v3 license, emphasis mine:
2. Basic Permissions.
All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program. The output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a covered work. This License acknowledges your rights of fair use or other equivalent, as provided by copyright law.
You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force. You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you.
The wording of the BSD license makes this implicit:
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
So there's nothing from the GPL and BSD licenses preventing you from running the programs in any scenario, and the GPL even reaffirms so.
Also, note that both GPL and BSD are OSI-approved licenses; that means that the license complies with the Open Source Definition, which states:
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
Therefore, this assures that GPL- and BSD-licensed software can be used in any field / kind of work, including governmental.
A different question is whether your particular workplace/scenario/organization allows you to run GPL/BSD licensed software.
And, of course, if you were distributing the programs or allowing other people to use it, the situation would be different. Since you're talking about desktop productivity/graphics software (GIMP, inkscape, etc) this is not the case.
answered Jul 24 at 9:53
IvanSanchezIvanSanchez
2264 bronze badges
edited Jul 24 at 15:24
answered Jul 24 at 9:53
IvanSanchezIvanSanchez
2264 bronze badges
answered Jul 24 at 9:53
IvanSanchezIvanSanchez
2264 bronze badges
answered Jul 24 at 9:53
IvanSanchezIvanSanchez
2264 bronze badges
2264 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
The definition of Free Software includes anyone being able to use the software for any purpose (any field of endeavor and no discrimination against persons or groups). So no version of the GPL, or any other Free Software license can prevent the DoD or any other government entity from using the software.
Note that some software or the things that some software does could be banned in various countries or perhaps under international treaty, but that isn't really license related.
answered Jul 23 at 22:01
ivanivanivanivan
6901 gold badge3 silver badges8 bronze badges
5
Actually, no, "free" software cannot necessarily be used for any purpose. It's subject to the restrictions of its license, so for example you can't use GNU Readline in a proprietary application you distribute to others only in binary form. Some open-source licenses even prevent you from using the code in web applications for which you don't distribute the source code. Open source is only "always free" in the sense that you never have to pay money for the source code.
– Curt J. Sampson
Jul 24 at 5:31
29
@CurtJ.Sampson, that is not use, but distribution. If you have source code under a non-free licence that uses libreadline, you can link against the library and use it legally, but you are not permitted to give the binaries to someone else (but you could give out the non-free source and instructions to link it).
– Simon Richter
Jul 24 at 8:07
6
@Curt While "use" is definitely an overloaded term, it seems that "use" here means strictly "execute" (since that's the sense in which "use" is used in the body of the question, which does not include distribution and explicitly excludes modification). This is a different category of action from modification or distribution, which you discuss correctly in your comment. The disagreement here is purely about what actions are covered under the semantics of "use", not what the consequences of each action might be. (Note the network-app case you mention is modification-activated.)
– apsillers♦
Jul 24 at 10:52
7
@CurtJ.Sampson, that is the definition of "use" from the GPL. Running the software on your server and letting users interact with it also counts as "use" and is generally unrestricted, which is why the AGPL exists.
– Simon Richter
Jul 24 at 11:44
3
@CurtJ.Sampson - you notice of course that I qualified it with the terms from the Open Source Definition - any field of endeavor and no discrimination against persons or groups.
– ivanivan
Jul 24 at 12:05
|
show 4 more comments
The definition of Free Software includes anyone being able to use the software for any purpose (any field of endeavor and no discrimination against persons or groups). So no version of the GPL, or any other Free Software license can prevent the DoD or any other government entity from using the software.
Note that some software or the things that some software does could be banned in various countries or perhaps under international treaty, but that isn't really license related.
answered Jul 23 at 22:01
ivanivanivanivan
6901 gold badge3 silver badges8 bronze badges
5
Actually, no, "free" software cannot necessarily be used for any purpose. It's subject to the restrictions of its license, so for example you can't use GNU Readline in a proprietary application you distribute to others only in binary form. Some open-source licenses even prevent you from using the code in web applications for which you don't distribute the source code. Open source is only "always free" in the sense that you never have to pay money for the source code.
– Curt J. Sampson
Jul 24 at 5:31
29
@CurtJ.Sampson, that is not use, but distribution. If you have source code under a non-free licence that uses libreadline, you can link against the library and use it legally, but you are not permitted to give the binaries to someone else (but you could give out the non-free source and instructions to link it).
– Simon Richter
Jul 24 at 8:07
6
@Curt While "use" is definitely an overloaded term, it seems that "use" here means strictly "execute" (since that's the sense in which "use" is used in the body of the question, which does not include distribution and explicitly excludes modification). This is a different category of action from modification or distribution, which you discuss correctly in your comment. The disagreement here is purely about what actions are covered under the semantics of "use", not what the consequences of each action might be. (Note the network-app case you mention is modification-activated.)
– apsillers♦
Jul 24 at 10:52
7
@CurtJ.Sampson, that is the definition of "use" from the GPL. Running the software on your server and letting users interact with it also counts as "use" and is generally unrestricted, which is why the AGPL exists.
– Simon Richter
Jul 24 at 11:44
3
@CurtJ.Sampson - you notice of course that I qualified it with the terms from the Open Source Definition - any field of endeavor and no discrimination against persons or groups.
– ivanivan
Jul 24 at 12:05
|
show 4 more comments
The definition of Free Software includes anyone being able to use the software for any purpose (any field of endeavor and no discrimination against persons or groups). So no version of the GPL, or any other Free Software license can prevent the DoD or any other government entity from using the software.
Note that some software or the things that some software does could be banned in various countries or perhaps under international treaty, but that isn't really license related.
answered Jul 23 at 22:01
ivanivanivanivan
6901 gold badge3 silver badges8 bronze badges
The definition of Free Software includes anyone being able to use the software for any purpose (any field of endeavor and no discrimination against persons or groups). So no version of the GPL, or any other Free Software license can prevent the DoD or any other government entity from using the software.
Note that some software or the things that some software does could be banned in various countries or perhaps under international treaty, but that isn't really license related.
answered Jul 23 at 22:01
ivanivanivanivan
6901 gold badge3 silver badges8 bronze badges
answered Jul 23 at 22:01
ivanivanivanivan
6901 gold badge3 silver badges8 bronze badges
answered Jul 23 at 22:01
ivanivanivanivan
6901 gold badge3 silver badges8 bronze badges
answered Jul 23 at 22:01
ivanivanivanivan
6901 gold badge3 silver badges8 bronze badges
6901 gold badge3 silver badges8 bronze badges
5
Actually, no, "free" software cannot necessarily be used for any purpose. It's subject to the restrictions of its license, so for example you can't use GNU Readline in a proprietary application you distribute to others only in binary form. Some open-source licenses even prevent you from using the code in web applications for which you don't distribute the source code. Open source is only "always free" in the sense that you never have to pay money for the source code.
– Curt J. Sampson
Jul 24 at 5:31
29
@CurtJ.Sampson, that is not use, but distribution. If you have source code under a non-free licence that uses libreadline, you can link against the library and use it legally, but you are not permitted to give the binaries to someone else (but you could give out the non-free source and instructions to link it).
– Simon Richter
Jul 24 at 8:07
6
@Curt While "use" is definitely an overloaded term, it seems that "use" here means strictly "execute" (since that's the sense in which "use" is used in the body of the question, which does not include distribution and explicitly excludes modification). This is a different category of action from modification or distribution, which you discuss correctly in your comment. The disagreement here is purely about what actions are covered under the semantics of "use", not what the consequences of each action might be. (Note the network-app case you mention is modification-activated.)
– apsillers♦
Jul 24 at 10:52
7
@CurtJ.Sampson, that is the definition of "use" from the GPL. Running the software on your server and letting users interact with it also counts as "use" and is generally unrestricted, which is why the AGPL exists.
– Simon Richter
Jul 24 at 11:44
3
@CurtJ.Sampson - you notice of course that I qualified it with the terms from the Open Source Definition - any field of endeavor and no discrimination against persons or groups.
– ivanivan
Jul 24 at 12:05
|
show 4 more comments
5
Actually, no, "free" software cannot necessarily be used for any purpose. It's subject to the restrictions of its license, so for example you can't use GNU Readline in a proprietary application you distribute to others only in binary form. Some open-source licenses even prevent you from using the code in web applications for which you don't distribute the source code. Open source is only "always free" in the sense that you never have to pay money for the source code.
– Curt J. Sampson
Jul 24 at 5:31
29
@CurtJ.Sampson, that is not use, but distribution. If you have source code under a non-free licence that uses libreadline, you can link against the library and use it legally, but you are not permitted to give the binaries to someone else (but you could give out the non-free source and instructions to link it).
– Simon Richter
Jul 24 at 8:07
6
@Curt While "use" is definitely an overloaded term, it seems that "use" here means strictly "execute" (since that's the sense in which "use" is used in the body of the question, which does not include distribution and explicitly excludes modification). This is a different category of action from modification or distribution, which you discuss correctly in your comment. The disagreement here is purely about what actions are covered under the semantics of "use", not what the consequences of each action might be. (Note the network-app case you mention is modification-activated.)
– apsillers♦
Jul 24 at 10:52
7
@CurtJ.Sampson, that is the definition of "use" from the GPL. Running the software on your server and letting users interact with it also counts as "use" and is generally unrestricted, which is why the AGPL exists.
– Simon Richter
Jul 24 at 11:44
3
@CurtJ.Sampson - you notice of course that I qualified it with the terms from the Open Source Definition - any field of endeavor and no discrimination against persons or groups.
– ivanivan
Jul 24 at 12:05
5
5
Actually, no, "free" software cannot necessarily be used for any purpose. It's subject to the restrictions of its license, so for example you can't use GNU Readline in a proprietary application you distribute to others only in binary form. Some open-source licenses even prevent you from using the code in web applications for which you don't distribute the source code. Open source is only "always free" in the sense that you never have to pay money for the source code.
– Curt J. Sampson
Jul 24 at 5:31
Actually, no, "free" software cannot necessarily be used for any purpose. It's subject to the restrictions of its license, so for example you can't use GNU Readline in a proprietary application you distribute to others only in binary form. Some open-source licenses even prevent you from using the code in web applications for which you don't distribute the source code. Open source is only "always free" in the sense that you never have to pay money for the source code.
– Curt J. Sampson
Jul 24 at 5:31
29
29
@CurtJ.Sampson, that is not use, but distribution. If you have source code under a non-free licence that uses libreadline, you can link against the library and use it legally, but you are not permitted to give the binaries to someone else (but you could give out the non-free source and instructions to link it).
– Simon Richter
Jul 24 at 8:07
@CurtJ.Sampson, that is not use, but distribution. If you have source code under a non-free licence that uses libreadline, you can link against the library and use it legally, but you are not permitted to give the binaries to someone else (but you could give out the non-free source and instructions to link it).
– Simon Richter
Jul 24 at 8:07
6
6
@Curt While "use" is definitely an overloaded term, it seems that "use" here means strictly "execute" (since that's the sense in which "use" is used in the body of the question, which does not include distribution and explicitly excludes modification). This is a different category of action from modification or distribution, which you discuss correctly in your comment. The disagreement here is purely about what actions are covered under the semantics of "use", not what the consequences of each action might be. (Note the network-app case you mention is modification-activated.)
– apsillers♦
Jul 24 at 10:52
@Curt While "use" is definitely an overloaded term, it seems that "use" here means strictly "execute" (since that's the sense in which "use" is used in the body of the question, which does not include distribution and explicitly excludes modification). This is a different category of action from modification or distribution, which you discuss correctly in your comment. The disagreement here is purely about what actions are covered under the semantics of "use", not what the consequences of each action might be. (Note the network-app case you mention is modification-activated.)
– apsillers♦
Jul 24 at 10:52
7
7
@CurtJ.Sampson, that is the definition of "use" from the GPL. Running the software on your server and letting users interact with it also counts as "use" and is generally unrestricted, which is why the AGPL exists.
– Simon Richter
Jul 24 at 11:44
@CurtJ.Sampson, that is the definition of "use" from the GPL. Running the software on your server and letting users interact with it also counts as "use" and is generally unrestricted, which is why the AGPL exists.
– Simon Richter
Jul 24 at 11:44
3
3
@CurtJ.Sampson - you notice of course that I qualified it with the terms from the Open Source Definition - any field of endeavor and no discrimination against persons or groups.
– ivanivan
Jul 24 at 12:05
@CurtJ.Sampson - you notice of course that I qualified it with the terms from the Open Source Definition - any field of endeavor and no discrimination against persons or groups.
– ivanivan
Jul 24 at 12:05
|
show 4 more comments
Different organizations have different policies. Google is apparently fine with GPL software, but doesn't permit AGPL. Facebook seems fine with both, but anything under the SSPL or with a Commons Clause addendum is right out. My company is fine with MIT/BSD/Apache, GPL, and AGPL but bans proprietary software.
So I don't think there is a hard and fast rule that we can point to; you will have to ask your employer what the applicable policy is.
answered Jul 23 at 20:00
MadHatterMadHatter
11.5k1 gold badge22 silver badges46 bronze badges
7
While this is good overview at the organizations' side of the matter, I think (though maybe I'm wrong) that the OP is asking if the licenses themselves prohibit use in a government context.
– apsillers♦
Jul 23 at 20:39
2
@apsillers an excellent point, though it had never occurred to me that anyone could ask that. Fortunately, ivanivan has done an excellent job answering that interpretation of the question. Perhaps the OP could clarify which (s)he meant?
– MadHatter
Jul 24 at 6:55
1
For the record, there's a big difference in policies depending on whether you're talking about using software/library as part of your own product/service (i.e. integration/linking), or if you're simply talking about installing and using the software. This answer seems to be talking about the former, whereas OP specifically asked about the latter.
– A C
Jul 25 at 6:24
@AC I agree that policies will likely be different for use vs. distribute, but this answer covers simple usage as well as distribution.
– MadHatter
Jul 25 at 9:51
add a comment |
Different organizations have different policies. Google is apparently fine with GPL software, but doesn't permit AGPL. Facebook seems fine with both, but anything under the SSPL or with a Commons Clause addendum is right out. My company is fine with MIT/BSD/Apache, GPL, and AGPL but bans proprietary software.
So I don't think there is a hard and fast rule that we can point to; you will have to ask your employer what the applicable policy is.
answered Jul 23 at 20:00
MadHatterMadHatter
11.5k1 gold badge22 silver badges46 bronze badges
7
While this is good overview at the organizations' side of the matter, I think (though maybe I'm wrong) that the OP is asking if the licenses themselves prohibit use in a government context.
– apsillers♦
Jul 23 at 20:39
2
@apsillers an excellent point, though it had never occurred to me that anyone could ask that. Fortunately, ivanivan has done an excellent job answering that interpretation of the question. Perhaps the OP could clarify which (s)he meant?
– MadHatter
Jul 24 at 6:55
1
For the record, there's a big difference in policies depending on whether you're talking about using software/library as part of your own product/service (i.e. integration/linking), or if you're simply talking about installing and using the software. This answer seems to be talking about the former, whereas OP specifically asked about the latter.
– A C
Jul 25 at 6:24
@AC I agree that policies will likely be different for use vs. distribute, but this answer covers simple usage as well as distribution.
– MadHatter
Jul 25 at 9:51
add a comment |
Different organizations have different policies. Google is apparently fine with GPL software, but doesn't permit AGPL. Facebook seems fine with both, but anything under the SSPL or with a Commons Clause addendum is right out. My company is fine with MIT/BSD/Apache, GPL, and AGPL but bans proprietary software.
So I don't think there is a hard and fast rule that we can point to; you will have to ask your employer what the applicable policy is.
answered Jul 23 at 20:00
MadHatterMadHatter
11.5k1 gold badge22 silver badges46 bronze badges
Different organizations have different policies. Google is apparently fine with GPL software, but doesn't permit AGPL. Facebook seems fine with both, but anything under the SSPL or with a Commons Clause addendum is right out. My company is fine with MIT/BSD/Apache, GPL, and AGPL but bans proprietary software.
So I don't think there is a hard and fast rule that we can point to; you will have to ask your employer what the applicable policy is.
answered Jul 23 at 20:00
MadHatterMadHatter
11.5k1 gold badge22 silver badges46 bronze badges
answered Jul 23 at 20:00
MadHatterMadHatter
11.5k1 gold badge22 silver badges46 bronze badges
answered Jul 23 at 20:00
MadHatterMadHatter
11.5k1 gold badge22 silver badges46 bronze badges
answered Jul 23 at 20:00
MadHatterMadHatter
11.5k1 gold badge22 silver badges46 bronze badges
11.5k1 gold badge22 silver badges46 bronze badges
7
While this is good overview at the organizations' side of the matter, I think (though maybe I'm wrong) that the OP is asking if the licenses themselves prohibit use in a government context.
– apsillers♦
Jul 23 at 20:39
2
@apsillers an excellent point, though it had never occurred to me that anyone could ask that. Fortunately, ivanivan has done an excellent job answering that interpretation of the question. Perhaps the OP could clarify which (s)he meant?
– MadHatter
Jul 24 at 6:55
1
For the record, there's a big difference in policies depending on whether you're talking about using software/library as part of your own product/service (i.e. integration/linking), or if you're simply talking about installing and using the software. This answer seems to be talking about the former, whereas OP specifically asked about the latter.
– A C
Jul 25 at 6:24
@AC I agree that policies will likely be different for use vs. distribute, but this answer covers simple usage as well as distribution.
– MadHatter
Jul 25 at 9:51
add a comment |
7
While this is good overview at the organizations' side of the matter, I think (though maybe I'm wrong) that the OP is asking if the licenses themselves prohibit use in a government context.
– apsillers♦
Jul 23 at 20:39
2
@apsillers an excellent point, though it had never occurred to me that anyone could ask that. Fortunately, ivanivan has done an excellent job answering that interpretation of the question. Perhaps the OP could clarify which (s)he meant?
– MadHatter
Jul 24 at 6:55
1
For the record, there's a big difference in policies depending on whether you're talking about using software/library as part of your own product/service (i.e. integration/linking), or if you're simply talking about installing and using the software. This answer seems to be talking about the former, whereas OP specifically asked about the latter.
– A C
Jul 25 at 6:24
@AC I agree that policies will likely be different for use vs. distribute, but this answer covers simple usage as well as distribution.
– MadHatter
Jul 25 at 9:51
7
7
While this is good overview at the organizations' side of the matter, I think (though maybe I'm wrong) that the OP is asking if the licenses themselves prohibit use in a government context.
– apsillers♦
Jul 23 at 20:39
While this is good overview at the organizations' side of the matter, I think (though maybe I'm wrong) that the OP is asking if the licenses themselves prohibit use in a government context.
– apsillers♦
Jul 23 at 20:39
2
2
@apsillers an excellent point, though it had never occurred to me that anyone could ask that. Fortunately, ivanivan has done an excellent job answering that interpretation of the question. Perhaps the OP could clarify which (s)he meant?
– MadHatter
Jul 24 at 6:55
@apsillers an excellent point, though it had never occurred to me that anyone could ask that. Fortunately, ivanivan has done an excellent job answering that interpretation of the question. Perhaps the OP could clarify which (s)he meant?
– MadHatter
Jul 24 at 6:55
1
1
For the record, there's a big difference in policies depending on whether you're talking about using software/library as part of your own product/service (i.e. integration/linking), or if you're simply talking about installing and using the software. This answer seems to be talking about the former, whereas OP specifically asked about the latter.
– A C
Jul 25 at 6:24
For the record, there's a big difference in policies depending on whether you're talking about using software/library as part of your own product/service (i.e. integration/linking), or if you're simply talking about installing and using the software. This answer seems to be talking about the former, whereas OP specifically asked about the latter.
– A C
Jul 25 at 6:24
@AC I agree that policies will likely be different for use vs. distribute, but this answer covers simple usage as well as distribution.
– MadHatter
Jul 25 at 9:51
@AC I agree that policies will likely be different for use vs. distribute, but this answer covers simple usage as well as distribution.
– MadHatter
Jul 25 at 9:51
add a comment |
Whilst others have covered the legal aspects, I think it's worth noting there are numerous real-world examples of government agencies successfully using open-source licences without issue.
Germany's government is quite fond of open source solutions:
the federal government of Germany has decided to partner with
Nextcloud–a popular open source file sync and collaborative service
provider.
https://fossbytes.com/german-government-open-source-cloud-nextcloud/
The International Space Station, and thus NASA, uses Linux:
the “dozens of laptops” will make the change to Debian 6. These
laptops will join many other systems aboard the ISS that already run
various flavors of Linux, such as RedHat and Scientific Linux.
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/155392-international-space-station-switches-from-windows-to-linux-for-improved-reliability
Ubuntu was even approved for use by the federal government:
Canonical's Ubuntu has become third Linux operating system approved by
the General Services Administration for use by federal purchasers
https://www.pcworld.com/article/190264/Government_Ubuntu.html
The US Navy Oceanographic Office uses Linux:
On a grander scale, many federal agencies are also using Linux. One
example is the US Navy Oceanographic Office (NAVOCEANO), which
collects and analyzes the world's oceans for the benefit of both the
Navy and other Department of Defense agencies, is currently using
Linux in certain environments.
https://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6217
The UK government even encourages the adoption of open standards, including ODF and ODF-compatible software, such as LibreOffice:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/using-open-document-formats-odf-in-your-organisation
A number of governments even open-source their own works:
The UK government has it's own dedicated open-source licence:
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/
The US government in 2014 trialled open-sourcing some of it's code (for internal government reuse):
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160808/17314335186/us-government-now-has-official-open-source-software-policy.shtml
The DoD and USAF even offered up a lightweight Linux OS:
https://www.geek.com/chips/u-s-dept-of-defense-offers-up-tiny-secure-linux-distribution-1405659/
There's plenty of other examples which you can find. I even work in a government organisation and we use a variety of GPL and open-source style licences (including Ubuntu and CentOS). It's advisable you read and comply with the terms of each given licence as stated.
answered Jul 24 at 13:40
SSight3SSight3
2512 bronze badges
2
Additional example: France provides an annually updated list of FLOSS software recommended for use in administration. Here is the 2019 version: mim-libre.fr/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/sill-2019-pub.pdf. Various branches of the administration also publish their custom software in their dedicated GitHub & GitLab accounts.
– Droplet
Jul 26 at 10:08
add a comment |
Whilst others have covered the legal aspects, I think it's worth noting there are numerous real-world examples of government agencies successfully using open-source licences without issue.
Germany's government is quite fond of open source solutions:
the federal government of Germany has decided to partner with
Nextcloud–a popular open source file sync and collaborative service
provider.
https://fossbytes.com/german-government-open-source-cloud-nextcloud/
The International Space Station, and thus NASA, uses Linux:
the “dozens of laptops” will make the change to Debian 6. These
laptops will join many other systems aboard the ISS that already run
various flavors of Linux, such as RedHat and Scientific Linux.
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/155392-international-space-station-switches-from-windows-to-linux-for-improved-reliability
Ubuntu was even approved for use by the federal government:
Canonical's Ubuntu has become third Linux operating system approved by
the General Services Administration for use by federal purchasers
https://www.pcworld.com/article/190264/Government_Ubuntu.html
The US Navy Oceanographic Office uses Linux:
On a grander scale, many federal agencies are also using Linux. One
example is the US Navy Oceanographic Office (NAVOCEANO), which
collects and analyzes the world's oceans for the benefit of both the
Navy and other Department of Defense agencies, is currently using
Linux in certain environments.
https://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6217
The UK government even encourages the adoption of open standards, including ODF and ODF-compatible software, such as LibreOffice:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/using-open-document-formats-odf-in-your-organisation
A number of governments even open-source their own works:
The UK government has it's own dedicated open-source licence:
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/
The US government in 2014 trialled open-sourcing some of it's code (for internal government reuse):
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160808/17314335186/us-government-now-has-official-open-source-software-policy.shtml
The DoD and USAF even offered up a lightweight Linux OS:
https://www.geek.com/chips/u-s-dept-of-defense-offers-up-tiny-secure-linux-distribution-1405659/
There's plenty of other examples which you can find. I even work in a government organisation and we use a variety of GPL and open-source style licences (including Ubuntu and CentOS). It's advisable you read and comply with the terms of each given licence as stated.
answered Jul 24 at 13:40
SSight3SSight3
2512 bronze badges
2
Additional example: France provides an annually updated list of FLOSS software recommended for use in administration. Here is the 2019 version: mim-libre.fr/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/sill-2019-pub.pdf. Various branches of the administration also publish their custom software in their dedicated GitHub & GitLab accounts.
– Droplet
Jul 26 at 10:08
add a comment |
Whilst others have covered the legal aspects, I think it's worth noting there are numerous real-world examples of government agencies successfully using open-source licences without issue.
Germany's government is quite fond of open source solutions:
the federal government of Germany has decided to partner with
Nextcloud–a popular open source file sync and collaborative service
provider.
https://fossbytes.com/german-government-open-source-cloud-nextcloud/
The International Space Station, and thus NASA, uses Linux:
the “dozens of laptops” will make the change to Debian 6. These
laptops will join many other systems aboard the ISS that already run
various flavors of Linux, such as RedHat and Scientific Linux.
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/155392-international-space-station-switches-from-windows-to-linux-for-improved-reliability
Ubuntu was even approved for use by the federal government:
Canonical's Ubuntu has become third Linux operating system approved by
the General Services Administration for use by federal purchasers
https://www.pcworld.com/article/190264/Government_Ubuntu.html
The US Navy Oceanographic Office uses Linux:
On a grander scale, many federal agencies are also using Linux. One
example is the US Navy Oceanographic Office (NAVOCEANO), which
collects and analyzes the world's oceans for the benefit of both the
Navy and other Department of Defense agencies, is currently using
Linux in certain environments.
https://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6217
The UK government even encourages the adoption of open standards, including ODF and ODF-compatible software, such as LibreOffice:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/using-open-document-formats-odf-in-your-organisation
A number of governments even open-source their own works:
The UK government has it's own dedicated open-source licence:
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/
The US government in 2014 trialled open-sourcing some of it's code (for internal government reuse):
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160808/17314335186/us-government-now-has-official-open-source-software-policy.shtml
The DoD and USAF even offered up a lightweight Linux OS:
https://www.geek.com/chips/u-s-dept-of-defense-offers-up-tiny-secure-linux-distribution-1405659/
There's plenty of other examples which you can find. I even work in a government organisation and we use a variety of GPL and open-source style licences (including Ubuntu and CentOS). It's advisable you read and comply with the terms of each given licence as stated.
answered Jul 24 at 13:40
SSight3SSight3
2512 bronze badges
Whilst others have covered the legal aspects, I think it's worth noting there are numerous real-world examples of government agencies successfully using open-source licences without issue.
Germany's government is quite fond of open source solutions:
the federal government of Germany has decided to partner with
Nextcloud–a popular open source file sync and collaborative service
provider.
https://fossbytes.com/german-government-open-source-cloud-nextcloud/
The International Space Station, and thus NASA, uses Linux:
the “dozens of laptops” will make the change to Debian 6. These
laptops will join many other systems aboard the ISS that already run
various flavors of Linux, such as RedHat and Scientific Linux.
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/155392-international-space-station-switches-from-windows-to-linux-for-improved-reliability
Ubuntu was even approved for use by the federal government:
Canonical's Ubuntu has become third Linux operating system approved by
the General Services Administration for use by federal purchasers
https://www.pcworld.com/article/190264/Government_Ubuntu.html
The US Navy Oceanographic Office uses Linux:
On a grander scale, many federal agencies are also using Linux. One
example is the US Navy Oceanographic Office (NAVOCEANO), which
collects and analyzes the world's oceans for the benefit of both the
Navy and other Department of Defense agencies, is currently using
Linux in certain environments.
https://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6217
The UK government even encourages the adoption of open standards, including ODF and ODF-compatible software, such as LibreOffice:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/using-open-document-formats-odf-in-your-organisation
A number of governments even open-source their own works:
The UK government has it's own dedicated open-source licence:
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/
The US government in 2014 trialled open-sourcing some of it's code (for internal government reuse):
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160808/17314335186/us-government-now-has-official-open-source-software-policy.shtml
The DoD and USAF even offered up a lightweight Linux OS:
https://www.geek.com/chips/u-s-dept-of-defense-offers-up-tiny-secure-linux-distribution-1405659/
There's plenty of other examples which you can find. I even work in a government organisation and we use a variety of GPL and open-source style licences (including Ubuntu and CentOS). It's advisable you read and comply with the terms of each given licence as stated.
answered Jul 24 at 13:40
SSight3SSight3
2512 bronze badges
answered Jul 24 at 13:40
SSight3SSight3
2512 bronze badges
answered Jul 24 at 13:40
SSight3SSight3
2512 bronze badges
answered Jul 24 at 13:40
SSight3SSight3
2512 bronze badges
2512 bronze badges
2
Additional example: France provides an annually updated list of FLOSS software recommended for use in administration. Here is the 2019 version: mim-libre.fr/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/sill-2019-pub.pdf. Various branches of the administration also publish their custom software in their dedicated GitHub & GitLab accounts.
– Droplet
Jul 26 at 10:08
add a comment |
2
Additional example: France provides an annually updated list of FLOSS software recommended for use in administration. Here is the 2019 version: mim-libre.fr/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/sill-2019-pub.pdf. Various branches of the administration also publish their custom software in their dedicated GitHub & GitLab accounts.
– Droplet
Jul 26 at 10:08
2
2
Additional example: France provides an annually updated list of FLOSS software recommended for use in administration. Here is the 2019 version: mim-libre.fr/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/sill-2019-pub.pdf. Various branches of the administration also publish their custom software in their dedicated GitHub & GitLab accounts.
– Droplet
Jul 26 at 10:08
Additional example: France provides an annually updated list of FLOSS software recommended for use in administration. Here is the 2019 version: mim-libre.fr/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/sill-2019-pub.pdf. Various branches of the administration also publish their custom software in their dedicated GitHub & GitLab accounts.
– Droplet
Jul 26 at 10:08
add a comment |
In general, yes. However, some government agencies place additional requirements on their software, either by policy or by law.
Example: The USG often requires FIPS certification for cryptographic modules.
Obviously, there may be other types of certification for other use cases. I don't believe there are any for graphics editing, but I don't work in that industry.
Certification costs are often borne by the developer, so most FOSS packages aren't certified. This is part of the reason why OpenSSL and Red Hat are important parts of the ecosystem; they allow penetration into regulated sectors.
In general GPL and BSD are permissible, but it depends on the specific industry, policies, and laws.
answered Jul 24 at 20:39
DoubleDDoubleD
1511 bronze badge
add a comment |
In general, yes. However, some government agencies place additional requirements on their software, either by policy or by law.
Example: The USG often requires FIPS certification for cryptographic modules.
Obviously, there may be other types of certification for other use cases. I don't believe there are any for graphics editing, but I don't work in that industry.
Certification costs are often borne by the developer, so most FOSS packages aren't certified. This is part of the reason why OpenSSL and Red Hat are important parts of the ecosystem; they allow penetration into regulated sectors.
In general GPL and BSD are permissible, but it depends on the specific industry, policies, and laws.
answered Jul 24 at 20:39
DoubleDDoubleD
1511 bronze badge
add a comment |
In general, yes. However, some government agencies place additional requirements on their software, either by policy or by law.
Example: The USG often requires FIPS certification for cryptographic modules.
Obviously, there may be other types of certification for other use cases. I don't believe there are any for graphics editing, but I don't work in that industry.
Certification costs are often borne by the developer, so most FOSS packages aren't certified. This is part of the reason why OpenSSL and Red Hat are important parts of the ecosystem; they allow penetration into regulated sectors.
In general GPL and BSD are permissible, but it depends on the specific industry, policies, and laws.
answered Jul 24 at 20:39
DoubleDDoubleD
1511 bronze badge
In general, yes. However, some government agencies place additional requirements on their software, either by policy or by law.
Example: The USG often requires FIPS certification for cryptographic modules.
Obviously, there may be other types of certification for other use cases. I don't believe there are any for graphics editing, but I don't work in that industry.
Certification costs are often borne by the developer, so most FOSS packages aren't certified. This is part of the reason why OpenSSL and Red Hat are important parts of the ecosystem; they allow penetration into regulated sectors.
In general GPL and BSD are permissible, but it depends on the specific industry, policies, and laws.
answered Jul 24 at 20:39
DoubleDDoubleD
1511 bronze badge
answered Jul 24 at 20:39
DoubleDDoubleD
1511 bronze badge
answered Jul 24 at 20:39
DoubleDDoubleD
1511 bronze badge
answered Jul 24 at 20:39
DoubleDDoubleD
1511 bronze badge
1511 bronze badge
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Open Source Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fopensource.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f8557%2fdo-the-licences-permit-gpl-and-bsd-licensed-applications-to-be-used-for-governm%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
15
Which department of which government? I'm pretty sure they don't all have the same rules.
– Philip Kendall
Jul 23 at 19:55
15
Perhaps you could clarify whether you meant "does the licence allow me to use the software for government work" or "does the government allow me to use the software for government work"?
– MadHatter
Jul 24 at 12:06
2
More fundamentally, which government? World? Federal? State? Province? Municipality?
– James McLeod
Jul 24 at 16:08
2
Al, please edit the question to clarify.
– prl
Jul 25 at 20:46
1
Note that BSD originates from the University of California, Berkeley, which is a government-run institution.
– Justin Lardinois
Jul 26 at 0:08