Healthcare.gov Violates Open Source License
from the this-could-be-interesting dept
With all of the other problems associated with the launch of the Healthcare.gov website, you'd think that some of those expensive government contractors would understand open source licensing and how it works. Apparently not. It would appear that the site uses DataTables, which is a free and open source plug-in for jQuery, allowing for much better data handling and display. But, as most people who understand open source software recognize, there are often conditions for such usage, including the need to retain the license information in the software. DataTables is available as both a GPL v2 and BSD license, and even the DataTables team notes that basically all you have to do is "keep the copyright notices in the software."But Healthcare.gov did not do that.
Oops. While it's not exactly "blatant software piracy" as some consipiracy-theory sites are claiming, it is a violation of the license, and thus, a form of copyright infringement. SpryMedia, the company behind DataTables has responded by saying it's "extremely disappointed". While the almost always sensationalistic Russia Today is claiming that SpryMedia "plans to sue" that doesn't seem to be supported anywhere else. So far, there's just a tweet saying that it's "excellent to see DataTables being used" and that "leaving the copyright header in place isn't too much to ask :-)."
Open source developers don't often sue over misuses of their licenses, though it does happen. Of course, a better solution than going to court would be for the government to fix the mistake, make a public statement about this and, potentially, donate to DataTables.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, datatables, healthcare.gov, license, open source
Companies: sprymedia
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Well done
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well done
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well done
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well done
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TD Stands up for COPYRIGHT !!!
Good to see you stand up for people's copyright, rights.
Way too much copyright theft, piracy and other 'suspect' activity, most of which is applauded by TD. Is this a sign that TD is changing it's stance of copyright theft and piracy ?
What next TD standing up for peoples rights to protect their inventions with patents ??
Or is it you hatred for anything "US Government" trumps hatred of copyright and other creators rights ?
Just seems like an odd article from TD, but then I noticed it was about the US Government, at least we know your hatred for the Government is greater than that of copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TD Stands up for COPYRIGHT !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TD Stands up for COPYRIGHT !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TD Stands up for COPYRIGHT !!!
But then, everybody already knew that about you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: TD Stands up for COPYRIGHT !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: TD Stands up for COPYRIGHT !!!
Of course if you can read this article and see in it, 'TD's LOVE for the US Gov. and it's HATE of Copyright' that is an issue for you.
It's not my reading of this article, perhaps you might like to get someone to read it to you, or at least give you the 'gist' of what is going on..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: TD Stands up for COPYRIGHT !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not a violation. Sovereign immunity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe: Federal Tort Claims Act
so easy and cheap, that the government really has
no excuse to not post the license.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yet another reason no one takes you seriously
When the government or a company does it? 'Eh, it's no big deal'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yet another reason no one takes you seriously
When the government or a company does it? 'Eh, it's no big deal'.
It's got nothing to do with what I consider at all, I did not write this article, at least I am consistent.
It's just I find it amusing that TD is willing to stand UP FOR COPYRIGHT, if the greater good of it is to enable them to attack the greater evil of the US Government.
And quite frankly, this IS NOT A BIG DEAL, but that is beside the point, the price of seeing TD stand up FOR COPYRIGHT rights is priceless.
It's like how all politicians are stupid, evil, corrupt and bribed until they make a comment in support of TD's biases, then they are hero's and the next president.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yet another reason no one takes you seriously
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yet another reason no one takes you seriously
why do YOU love our government so much, darryl?
Whats it to you anyway?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I work with the site Designers
This was all caused by a launch date being set in stone while requirements changed constantly. As such I have no doubt that the GPL was ignored, it simply was outside anyone's radar as a needed item.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I work with the site Designers
One of the principles of software project management is that it is a three legged stool consisting of cost, features, and delivery date. The true response from any competent project manager is, pick two. Whomever managed this project did not let the stakeholders in on this 'secret'.
For more information please let me refer y'all to:
Managing Software Development Projects by Neal Whitten
and
Facts and Fallacies of Software Engineering by Robert Glass
or continue in your dreamworld where things happen correctly and on time and within budget.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I work with the site Designers
FWIW, I've always heard it: "Good, Fast, or Cheap - pick two". Yes I'm a software developer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I work with the site Designers
Not that we ever will, but I would love to see the documents, all of them from the .1 version to whatever the current version is.
I bet it is quite the roller coaster ride.
Does Vegas produce odds on things like this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I work with the site Designers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I work with the site Designers
No kidding. We already paid a half billion dollars for what amounts to a poor-man's Geocities site that is completely non-functional. (Not a "glitch", either, as Obama and Sibelius keeping claiming. A complete, catastrophic, systemic failure is not a "glitch".)
I wonder how much more this "tech surge" to fix it is going to cost us?
At a minimum, Sibelius should lose her job over this whole thing, if not prosecuted for malfeasance of office.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I work with the site Designers
I am pretty sure you meant to say "INCOMPETENT" project manager !!!
a competent software project manager is able to deliver
ON SPEC
ON TIME
and
ON BUDGET
if you can't deliver all 3 don't bother calling yourself a professional anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I work with the site Designers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I work with the site Designers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I work with the site Designers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I work with the site Designers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I work with the site Designers
And the 3 clause BSD licence is what, bullshit and worthy to be ignored?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I work with the site Designers
it was not something 'left out due to having too much other stuff to do'
the license was already in the .js file they copied
they took the time to erase it (though not any of the developer comments in the code)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You know what, you can be those contractors will charge for doing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would that warrant an article from TD, or is it because it's the US Government that you hate, as opposed to Google that pays you ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
as is yours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
When was the last time you have seen Masnick taking Google to task for their data collection and distribution ? or their Open Source violations with Android of their backroom software systems ?
We all know that's not going to happen.
But this article is not about copyright, it's about something much larger, it's about how EVIL the US Government is.
Google can spy on your all they like, because they use that information to make money, and to profit from you, the US Government on the other hand only wants to try to help protect you, and find the baddies.
So Google is good because their model is based on greed, and the US Government is evil,, because they are just evil.
It's much more aligned to TD's 'charter' to incite hatred for anything "US Government" than to incite hatred for a poor struggling commercial company with the goal to monetise the information.
I am just commenting on what I see, I have no idea of TD's real motives and biases, but from what I see.
All I see here is that this is another 'vector' to attack the US Government, but to do so you have to stand in support of copyright, it's a dichotomy for TD.
But if you take away from this the hatred of the US Government behind it is a story standing up FOR COPYRIGHT, and the COPYRIGHT owners RIGHTS, so that's a good thing really.
So TD appears to have got the story right, if but for all the wrong reasons. Well done TD
Kudos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's refreshing to see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
> to attack the US Government
The US Government deserves to be 'attacked' when it displays gross incompetence at a level heretofore unrivaled in human history, as it has done with the whole Obamacare rollout catastrophe.
The taxpayers of this country deserve far more for their $500 million than they got.
Today, Obama was in the Rose Garden crowing over the fact that his health care web site has received 40 million hits in the three weeks it's been live, like that's some wonderful accomplishment. Whoop-dee-shit. The Drudge Report received that many *today* and it's still functional. So is Amazon. So is Facebook.
Weird how all those folks managed to design and implement high-traffic web sites with no problem... and yet *none* of them were consulted or contracted to do the Obamacare site. No, that was contracted out to DC power brokers and lobbyists as paybacks for political favors and the result is a half billion dollars wasted on 10-year-old tech that failed the moment the "on" button pushed.
Someone should go to jail over this, and you're whining about the government being criticized for it?
Piss off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Few cases end up in Court, for that very reason, few would stand a chance of winning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm not saying they should sue, mind you -- just that it's not a trivial case with a maximum payout of $750. As has been frequently said, in a lawsuit, the only winners would be the lawyers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I can see one of two things happening when the contractor's lawyers hear about this. They could fix the issue, or they could laugh in the face of the software devs.
If they try the second then they're just begging to be sued for several hundred million cases of infringement. With a statutory max of $150,000/infringement. You're talking the entire national debt right there. If you're talking minimum that's still at least $75 billion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Amazing !!!! That's some license !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That means every time anyone visits a web page on the site, they're committing infringement.
I hope no one in Japan tried to visit healthcare.gov. That's 2 years in jail for each page visited.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On a second thought, that's for non-commercial use of an .mp3-file only ... Maybe settle for $110 m and promise to fix the problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It runs right along with the two tier justice system. If government or the entertainment industry does it, then it was just an oversight. If private individuals do it, it morphs into a different animal all together.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Intellectual Property is out greatest asset...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Absolutely fine, and unworthy of corporate media mention muchless prosecution, when members of the Corporate-Political Class do it.
Totally evil, requiring massive fines and the dismemberment of the First Amendment, when mere citizens are accused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FWIW I've had this issue crop up on me
It's a bit of a trick to get some of these minimization tools to leave copyright notices in and unless someone looks it can go unnoticed for a long time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I was directly involved in a similar licensing/notification matter for an Apache product being distributed as part of a proprietary software package. Fortunately, in that case, once I pointed out the license violation, the issue was escalated to the legal department and eventually corrected. All that needed to happen was for the appropriate license to be cited/included with reference to the included library.
That organization was relatively enlightened, especially once legal was formally aware of the problem (they couldn't "unsee" it). Other places I've worked... not so much.
And even at that organization, they loved deploying a burgeoning wealth of high quality, trusted "open source" software in order to cut their costs. But they hardly if ever gave back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]