"An attack on the software license behind the Linux operating system has stirred up a free software controversy in Washington." This is getting a lot of coverage and I want to comment on it. 1. This is the right letter for the wrong reasons. The goverment SHOULDN'T release GPLed code. GPL is not public domain. BSD is public domain. GPL forces you to distribute your source code if you develop tools on top of GPLed code. Many organizations cannot distribute source code because they are trying to protect trade secrets. The BSD license makes code available for use by the broadest set of interests, with both open and closed source models. The government shouldn't be imposing a particular perspective on how software is supposed to work, especially when the matter is far from closed in the private sector. We can revisit this in the future if most organizations are releasing GPLed code. 2. "Why don't we also reject any software patents and copyrights that could discourage the adoption and use of software developed under federal funds?" Spafford asked. What is important is what is not being said. Federal funds should not be used to develop technology which is not placed in the public domain. This is just as important on the copyright side as it is on the copyleft side. A more balanced statement about the need for government research to be placed in the public domain would have been much more effective. Its unlikely that Smith's constituency was not influential in the nature of this statement. Furthermore, a lot of the funding for major GPLed projects comes from the federal government, so attacking this funding serves an obvious interest. As a result the general outrage about the letter is not misplaced. However, I agree. Government research should not be GPLed. Wired News: Letter: Free Software Hurts U.S. | 
