Obamacare Website Violates Licensing Agreement for Copyrighted Software

Repeated errors and delays have prevented many users from even establishing an account, and outside web designers have roundly panned the structure and coding of the site as amateurish and sloppy. The latest indication of the haphazard way in which Healthcare.gov was developed is the uncredited use of a copyrighted web script for a data function used by the site, a violation of the licensing agreement for the software.

The script in question is called DataTables, a very long and complex piece of website software used for formatting and presenting data. DataTables was developed by a British company called SpryMedia which licenses the open-source software freely to anyone who complies with the licensing agreement. A note at the bottom of the DataTables.net website says: "DataTables designed and created by SpryMedia © 2008-2013.

LINK

So it seems the hits keep coming for the Healthcare.gov site . . .

First, the U.S.G. employs a Canadian firm, GCI, to produce the site for the astonishing amount of $634 million dollars. What exactly did the Feds get for almost 3/4 of a billion dollars? The results were an amateurish site rife with glitches, hang ups, and an inability to handle a high volume of traffic (whether that was based on code or server capacity/readiness is apparently still a question).

Now, it appears GCI, for all the money they received, didn't even code the data aggregation tables themselves. These amateurs that were tasked with creating the biggest accomplishment of the current administration and the Progressives "crowning glory" simply copy and pasted a free open source code, available to anyone on the internet. Apparently, they all forgot (or most likely don't know) how to use Adobe Cold Fusion or Director Database? More and more, it looks like this site should have run the Feds less than $100K to produce and host.

To make matters worse, they deleted all of the tags that comply with the open source licensing agreement. To anyone unsure what that means . . . they committed copyright infringement . . . they pirated a free piece of software. I'm sure this was done to hide the fact they cut corners at every turn, while laughing their way to the bank with $634 million dollars in their pockets.

So, will the DOJ go after one of their own for piracy and copyright infringement? After all, if downloading 6 songs on the internet gets you up to 30 yrs and $1.5 million for piracy (on top of whatever the copyright holder sues for) . . . what should be done about a firm that uses piracy to code a .gov website?

Will the MSM report on this piracy the way they jump all over the teens and housewives that get busted for less egregious forms of copyright infringement?

Another question is . . . will Spry Media seek to press for damages or will they be "bailed out" under the table to go away quietly?

Bang up job, so far, Obamacare . . . everyday brings a new gaff.

Oh good lord this just keeps getting better rofl


I think the next people that go to court for copyright infringement should use this as a part of their defense.

This is just insanity. I know a company that could have made a website that functions better, would have handled the amount of customers coming through, AND been more secure for under $200k. 600+ million is absolutely disgusting and they should all be ashamed.

Too bad they have none.

Adobe back end isn't the way to go either.

Linux Running Apache Server, MySQL Database and PHP.

AbleEndangered
Adobe back end isn't the way to go either.

Linux Running Apache Server, MySQL Database and PHP.

I'm not a designer/developer . . . don't even work in that field. However, I'm only familiar with Adobe Creative Suite and basic web design. I'm sure there are better options and I would expect something much more "pro" than Adobe, but the fact remains . . . $634 million dollars got the Feds a copy/pasted pirated version of a product.

This whole program is one big Charlie Foxtrot.


To be honest, I'm more concerned with the Feds response to the copyright infringement . . . Does the DOJ have the balls to put one of these up?

Better have the FBI take down the site and file charges for piracy.
If there were any justice in this world that is.

AbleEndangered
Adobe back end isn't the way to go either.

Linux Running Apache Server, MySQL Database and PHP.

Is that another way of saying it would be easy to hack and retrieve personal information from?
If so that would sound about right for another half billion $ government boondoggle.

reply to post by solomons path


634,000,000 / 50,000 = 12,680

That money could have put 12,680 IT workers to work making 50,000 over the course of a year.

Talk about focus on Job creation...

I heard it was 300,000,000 on some mainstream media announcements, but you know them, and its still bad for a website.

You would not believe what could have been done with just 1 million for a website.

Were they thinking it was gonna be google its first year??

Its all one big scam... the whole kit and kaboodle...

If there's a legitimate trademark or copyright infringement in there somewhere...
... this ALL has to be placed on hold pending the outcome.

Just saying.

Yeah, I shared this in the Obamacare titanic thread earlier this evening. My suggestion is for the software company to force the US government to take their site down.

reply to post by Asktheanimals


Yeah with that much they could have built a google farm sized super computer!

reply to post by solomons path


The old familiar story. The question becomes... Who owns what share in the company?

It's open source under GPL v2 or BSD - could someone point out how this is unacceptable for government sites?

Just because I thought that governmental sites have the right to use software under those licenses.

ManFromEurope
It's open source under GPL v2 or BSD - could someone point out how this is unacceptable for government sites?

Just because I thought that governmental sites have the right to use software under those licenses.

It is not unacceptable for the government to use open-source software. Although after paying the obscene amount money they did, you would think it was all original code.

What is unacceptable is GCI removed all code stating the software was created and property of SpryMedia, violating the terms of the licensing agreement. In literary terms, it's called plagiarism. In media terms, it's called piracy.

If you visit the link, it clearly shows where the code was changed (screenshots included).

Given the Feds extreme crusade against piracy, it's funny/ironic/sad they are running a pirated version of software on their biggest online rollout.

It's as if somebody in charge had a high school aged kid who was like "I'll make a website for you dad!"

Then proceeded to half-ass it with stolen code and help from forums. I bet it's running on a LAMP server in that kids bedroom right now.

Somebody should see if the folks tasked with building this site have purchased any fancy cars recently.

I'm reminded of a King of the Hill episode where Bill paid a "genealogists" to Google his family.

reply to post by solomons path


That would be pretty funny if they did do that. Unfortunately what will happen is that the DOJ will give this site a pass, then downplay the piracy angle and we will all die a little more on the inside from the blatant hypocrisy.

reply to post by solomons path

Given the Feds extreme crusade against piracy, it's funny/ironic/sad they are running a pirated version of software on their biggest online rollout.

It's not pirated software it's open source. Maybe you and the person who wrote this article should learn the difference.

If anyone broke the copyright laws it's the people who made the site for charging for open source software.

Krazysh0t
reply to post by solomons path

 

That would be pretty funny if they did do that. Unfortunately what will happen is that the DOJ will give this site a pass, then downplay the piracy angle and we will all die a little more on the inside from the blatant hypocrisy.

Not only will it be given a pass . . . it will not even be brought up in the MSM.

Do you think the same lack of media interest would occur with any website that was critical (yet, with the same popular cognizance) toward the administration? It would be front page news, in order to discredit it.

Why does a 36 yr old housewife make the news for inadvertently having "illegal" songs on her computer? It's hard to "fight the power" when the power controls the flow of information . . .

buster2010
reply to post by solomons path

 

Given the Feds extreme crusade against piracy, it's funny/ironic/sad they are running a pirated version of software on their biggest online rollout.

It's not pirated software it's open source. Maybe you and the person who wrote this article should learn the difference.

If anyone broke the copyright laws it's the people who made the site for charging for open source software.

That's exactly what I said . . . And yes, by intentionally removing the accreditation towards SpryMedia and changing the code it violates the licensing agreement, which means it was pirated. Piracy is just the term given for "copyright infringement", where all media that violates the EULA is concerned.

What makes no sense is that as an open-source product, GCI could have used it legally by just keeping the code intact.

Yes . . . GCI broke the law, but the site is owned by the government . . . So, where is the DHS and DOJ to shut it down, just like any other site that is in violation of copyright laws?

ETA - And, no laws were broken for charging for open-source . . . they were paid to build a site and they did.

You're waffling to deflect blame, as usual.

reply to post by solomons path

Now, it appears GCI, for all the money they received, didn't even code the data aggregation tables themselves. These amateurs that were tasked with creating the biggest accomplishment of the current administration and the Progressives "crowning glory" simply copy and pasted a free open source code, available to anyone on the internet. Apparently, they all forgot (or most likely don't know) how to use Adobe Cold Fusion or Director Database? More and more, it looks like this site should have run the Feds less than $100K to produce and host.

I would like to point out. As a web developer myself. When creating a website. There really isn't a reason to re-invent the wheel.

Datatables is a very popular table plugin for jQuery. Them using open source software components is a very smart idea. When the technology is available you use it.

You also need to understand that DataTables is not a database. It's a software that along with jQuery allows you to take the database data and display it in a consistent fashion. With all the bells, whistles and functionality you need.

datatables.net...

Now this is not a problem and we shouldn't be crapping all over that company for this. We should be encouraging more government projects to use open source software. This is a very very very good thing.

What I do find alarming are the allegations that the site is not using the FOSS aka Free Open Source Software in a manner that would void the licensing.

datatables.net...

Over here on the faq page DataTables shows the licensing requirements.

Q. DataTables is great! How much is it?
A. DataTables is free, open source software that you can download and use for whatever purpose you wish, on any and as many sites you want. It is free for you to use! DataTables is available under two licenses: GPL v2 license or a BSD (3-point) license, with which you must comply (to do this, basically keep the copyright notices in the software).

Now there are situations where sites can not or may not be able to comply with the requirements.

Q. We can't use GPLv2 or BSD (3-point) licensed software. What do we do?
A. In the rare case that you can't use DataTables under either of the available licenses, please get in touch to discuss alternative licensing arrangements.

But this doesn't seem to be the case.
Very disappointing.

reply to post by solomons path


oh and speaking of source code

Hidden Code on Obamacare Website: ‘No Reasonable Expectation of Privacy’

(CNSNews.com) - Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, on Thursday grilled Cheryl Campbell, senior vice president of CGI Federal Inc., the company that built the Obamacare health-insurance exchange website, on language hidden in source code on the site that says applicants have “no reasonable expectation of privacy.”

Barton showed Campbell an image of the website coding that included this warning, and she confirmed that she knew it was there.

However, she insisted that in developing the site the way it did, her company was simply following "a set of rules and regulations" set out under their contract by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
- See more at: www.cnsnews.com...