That doesn't make sense. If you write code based on GPL-licensed software, then sell that to me, all the GPL says is that I have the right to the source code (not just the executable) and the right to modify/distribute/sell it as well.
However, if the DoD is hiring outside help, I'm not sure the above case is even relevant. When a startup hires an individual to write code, the individual doesn't necessarily maintain the rights to the code he writes, because he's acting on behalf of an organization (so the rights are automatically assigned to the company instead). And a company is free to distribute GPL code internally without releasing its source externally.
A separate question is whether the fact that the DoD is a government agency makes this aspect of corporate law not apply. Most writings of the public government are automatically in the public domain (a law which was pivotal in the Pentagon Papers proceedings), and the fact that the government is comprised "of the people" may make this issue more complicated.
> And even though the DOD’s use of open source code will alter the GPL for said code (they can’t, for obvious reasons, release any code they use and modify back into the wild)
This is what I don't understand. What are they altering about the license? And what are these seemingly 'obvious' reasons? The NSA was fully capable of releasing SE Linux. As for software to control missiles, etc., the real issue is that individuals (and even nations, as we've seen) can't create the physical weapons easily - the software itself is not necessarily the biggest hurdle.
(And, depending on what type of use we're talking about - though we'll probably never know exactly - the GPL may not even need to take effect, just as GPL and proprietary software can both coexist on an underlying GPL operating system, for example).
However, if the DoD is hiring outside help, I'm not sure the above case is even relevant. When a startup hires an individual to write code, the individual doesn't necessarily maintain the rights to the code he writes, because he's acting on behalf of an organization (so the rights are automatically assigned to the company instead). And a company is free to distribute GPL code internally without releasing its source externally.
A separate question is whether the fact that the DoD is a government agency makes this aspect of corporate law not apply. Most writings of the public government are automatically in the public domain (a law which was pivotal in the Pentagon Papers proceedings), and the fact that the government is comprised "of the people" may make this issue more complicated.
> And even though the DOD’s use of open source code will alter the GPL for said code (they can’t, for obvious reasons, release any code they use and modify back into the wild)
This is what I don't understand. What are they altering about the license? And what are these seemingly 'obvious' reasons? The NSA was fully capable of releasing SE Linux. As for software to control missiles, etc., the real issue is that individuals (and even nations, as we've seen) can't create the physical weapons easily - the software itself is not necessarily the biggest hurdle.
(And, depending on what type of use we're talking about - though we'll probably never know exactly - the GPL may not even need to take effect, just as GPL and proprietary software can both coexist on an underlying GPL operating system, for example).