Slashdot Mirror

Requiring the work done to be made OSS is unfair to the companies which do not want to do that. (But now allowing small companies to bid on the tender isn't an issue)

The government is allowed to set requirements on what they want to receive, and how they want it be be delivered. So technically speaking they can request a can of developers for 10.000 hours, and want to have a fair price in a tender for that. Or you can ask for a software license to allow you to do this and that. Hence if a solution company does not want to deliver such, they will not participate in the tender, but they have been allowed to participate and with a lot of experience might have been able to do so under a reduced cost (much experience in the field, able to reuse previous work). Less money spend is good for the tax payer. But this would still only be able to be used inside the government. Because there is a limitation a public body could act as a private body by the legislation of competition. Imagine the government buying all ground, developing real estate, there couldn't be any competition. The article is about should government require open source software to be independent of suppliers. There are quite a lot of examples where government software development is not about the next "Office" software but in CAD, geospatial, photogrammetry, simulation, urban planning where this software might benefit others. If the government would build a new OS-kernel we would likely all agree this is stupid, what about a competitor to ArcGIS/QGis?

There is no such thing as an "illegal download". Downloading files is perfectly legal. I have no idea what the term "illegal sources" in TFS means either. No law has been passed saying it is against the law to download from a particular site.

Whenever I see terms like these being bandied about I know someone is using deliberately vague and manipulative terms in an effort to con me.

You're just highlighting your ignorance of Dutch law.
Illegal sources are sources of published works that do not possess the right to distribute the work. Auteurswet, Article 5, sub 2.
Ignorance is not a valid point of view, and it is not something to be proud of (looking at you, modders)

It's article 185 of the "Wegenverkeerswet" which is the Dutch traffic law.

The exact text (in Dutch of course) can be found here: http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0006622/HoofdstukXII/Artikel185/geldigheidsdatum_02-10-2012
An explanation of the law is on Wikipedia (also in Dutch): http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artikel_185_Wegenverkeerswet

The law states that when a motorist and a non-motorist collide on the road, it is always the fault of the motorist, unless "overmacht" can be proven, which is a Dutch legal term meaning the motorist could not in any conceivable way have prevented the incident. So if you drive a car and hit a cyclist and it was absolutely impossible for you at any point to either brake or steer around the cyclist, then you go free. Otherwise, it's your fault.

Of course this isn't "fair" per se, but the law is there to protect the cyclists, who are perceived "weak users of the road" from motor vehicles, which are "strong users of the road". And I can tell you it works very well in practice.

http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001854/TweedeBoek/TitelXIV/Artikel240b/geldigheidsdatum_09-11-2009

---------------

Met gevangenisstraf van ten hoogste vier jaren of geldboete van de vijfde categorie wordt gestraft degene die een afbeelding - of een gegevensdrager, bevattende een afbeelding - van een seksuele gedraging, waarbij iemand die kennelijk de leeftijd van achttien jaar nog niet heeft bereikt, is betrokken of schijnbaar is betrokken, verspreidt, openlijk tentoonstelt, vervaardigt, invoert, doorvoert, uitvoert of in bezit heeft.

---------------

Your turn.

I fully agree, especially on the plain English and the amount of words ideas. It's particularly abhorrent that although all citizens are supposed to know and abide by the law no one actually tries to educate children in the law, because of course they bloody know that this is impossible. However, I do realize that some specialist areas might require extra laws and that as society evolves more and more specializations may arise. Since I wouldn't want to see food and drug safety regulations being scrapped in favour of nanotech guidelines, I propose that a) the basic page limit should be much much lower, so that anyone who enters the country could study all basic content within a week or two and b) that any additional legislation should have a simple sentence in front of the form: 'If you have never done X (or worked with Y or held office Z) the following laws and regulations don't apply to you.' Of course a framework is needed to prevent things like 'If you have never eaten, ...' but those are details that can be fixed.
Furthermore, I think that every law should be made publicly accessible by the government, including all details of who passed which law when. Wetten.overheid.nl for example already makes the laws publicly available, indexed and all, but no hint is given as to who voted for each law, at least not that I can find. Also note that law linked to is (at least for those who speak Dutch) a prime example of what is wrong with legalese. And on top of that, it defines embryo and foetus completely differently from the standard medical meaning. Any cel that has the potential for growing into a human being is an embryo? Really? Even the stem cells in my teeth? And if an embryo enters the human body it suddenly becomes a foetus? Am I, a man, filled with millions of foetus? Who knew... I think that should be another requirement for laws. No word shall be used in a meaning that disagrees with accepted usage, as defined by major dictionaries or applicable subject litterature.

According to the Dutch "Authors Law" of 1912, copying of books, music and movies for your own personal use and study is legal. It was decided that it also applies to downloads.

yes, the initiative focusses on open standards. The idea is that if data is locked in .doc documents noboy can read them without MS word. Instead open standards should be used instead.

Note that even property programs like from microsoft can be open, if the standard is fully published.

[...] use (open) standards - if available - for structure, meaning, representation, identification, presentation, storage and access. [...]

The Dutch Government CSIRT is doing this for two years already. So you can chill out to a cool Legowelt CD and get warned when there's a new threat.

In all EU countries, the government governs on sufferance of the parliament, and the government must adhere to any motions legally passed by the parliament.

Translation of the relevant part:

A second instrument of De Kamer (= Parliament) is the motion. In a motion, De Kamer voices an opinion or asks a minister or the whole cabinet to do something, or on the contrary to not do something. Such a statement carries much less weight than an amendment, because it's not binding. A minister can ignore a motion.