Slashdot Mirror
UK Govt Warned: Don't Buy GPL
JPMH writes "ZDNet is reporting that a UK IT industry body backed by Microsoft, IBM, Intel, BAE Systems and other high-tech heavyweights has urged the UK government not to commission open-source software, and particularly not software covered by the General Public License. According to Intellect, which lobbies for about 1,000 UK IT companies, the requirement of open-source licences for software funded by the government could have a negative impact on competition for contracts, the quality of the resulting software and even the confidentiality of government departments. In particular, Intellect recommends that the government drop the GNU General Public License (GPL), the licence upon which the GNU/Linux operating system is based, from its list of acceptable default licences for government-funded software, and steer clear of the GPL generally."
Considering that IBM sells solutions powered by Linux. Am I missing something critical here? Perhaps this was not a unilateral action by the member companies, but instead an action taken by whoever is nominally "in charge" of the consortium?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Wow!! So if I want to use the software for my own personal gain and charge to use my version, I can. Then I can get FREE software research. Yea!
Is there a sonyesque powerstuggle going on inside IBM that results in left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing?
fact is: opensource is changing the IT industry economics and IT providers should adapt or die ...
...
...
... (anyone in it 's sane mind really believes that OSS is inherently bad and insecure ? got tell that to NSA, NASA, ESA, IBM, the City of Munich or google ...)
as usual some people really don 't get it (not a big deal - dynossaurs got extint anyway) and will try all sorts of dirty tricks like this one
I hope as an european netizen and taxpayer that EC watch bodies look very wel at this kind of tricks
Other than that - lots of good publicity for OpenSource
Cheers from Portugal
It might seem strange at first. But consider this a body that IBM backs. It's not like they have a controlling vote. If this move is too drastic, they could pull out of the body, but that's unlikely. I think most of IBM's software that runs on GNU/Linux is commerce based, like Websphere. Gov't isn't going to load up on websphere. IBM is probably just as happy to sell the UK Gov't stuff running on AIX or Windows.
-t
http://unmoldable.com W:"No one of consequence" I:"I must know" W:"Get used to disappointment"
I don't believe a closed source license is a good one at all, but likewise I don't think the GPL is the best idea either. Either putting it directly into the public domain, or using a BSD style license is the best solution, IMHO.
NOTE: This is for discussions of software being *developed* with government dollars, not when bidding is going on to use existing software for a contract, which is a whole different issue. But when development is done with everyone's dollars, it should be open for use by all.
I,
Am in the unfortunate situation alluded to in the article referenced.
As a sole proprietor I've worked two years on a fairly sophisticated aviation simulation program that has usages in planning new airports and in airspace changes.
I would like to make my project GPLed.
Unfortunately, there are companies much more politically connected than I am that would absolutely love to take the code, go to the government official that they have in their hip pocket and sell it to them.
Sure, the stuff would have my name written all over it, but the government official would probably never ever see the code. All he would know is that some slick sales person sold him on the software and more importantly the big fat maintenance/upgrade contract that goes along with it.
That sort of thing is basically how it works in government contracting. Government guys have zero ethics and will screw you over in a heartbeat.
It's sort of like an ego trip for them. They know they have you (especially if you really want to sell them something) and they will jerk you around bigtime.
So yeah, if you're in a particularly giving mood then GPL is just fine. Just plan on not being able to put gas in your car for the rest of your life if you're gonna deal with government people.
Because there is always somebody who is going to make they government person more happy they you will, even though you might be the "expert".
Having said that, I have made my software's code available with fairly lax licensing terms.
The terms basically state that if you license the code and then try to sell anything based upon it then you owe me a piece of the pie.
If you want to use it for in-house purposes then you are free to use it.
If you don't like the terms then you can develop the code yourself.
Caution: Contents under pressure
Now the Industry might be spreading some lies around about how open source code is buggy and of lower quality than stuff done by the "professionals" but I think that's a load of crap. Even the worst open source projects I've looked at seem to be only as bad as the average professional code-base. Open source guys tend to code toward the features they need only, but if you paid them to implement features you need, I'm sure they wouldn't have a problem doing that.
As far as the license issue, if I were in charge of a government (or other) agency, I would demand access to the source code of the work I'd commissioned. I would even consider releasing that code to the world, if not under the GPL license at least under a BSD one. Big IT companies might fear that because if their code made it out into the world, they would have commit seppku from the embarassment of the code quality or having some wise-ass kid releasing a much-improved version.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
They're already way ahead of you. Check out this passage from the license agreement for the open source computational fluid dynamics software called "ISAAC" (can be found here):
NO SALE TO U.S. GOVERNMENT
11. The PROGRAM, and/or any modified version thereof, shall not, in any manner, be offered for sale to the U.S. Government, without the written consent of the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government shall not pay a second time for the PROGRAM or any enhanced/modified version therof. The PROGRAM may be used in contract with the U.S. Government, but no charge may be made for its use. If the PROGRAM is modified using or enhanced using U.S. Government funds, the Government will be provided the complete source code of that modified/enhanced version and the intellectual property rights of the resulting modification/enhancement shall be controlled by such funding agreement.
In other words, the government already paid for it once, and they'll be damned if they're gonna pay for it again. I'm quite sure that this passage was a requirement of their federal research grant.
governments considering buying open source software is considered. Frequently people here say "right tool for the right job" and talk about open standards being more important than the software. What has surprised me is that so far I haven't encountered one of the most important arguments: The right choice for governments is not necessarily the best software for the lowest price. For companies that reasoning is the only sound one but for governments it's not since they need to take more things into consideration - such as jobs in their own country. Have you ever seen police cars in a country made by a non-domestic manufacturer if there is a domestic manufacturer? I simply don't understand why so many European governments are so happy to send money to Redmond instead of trying to increase employment in their country. Obviously MS Office is better than OpenOffice and whether the total cost of ownership of Windows is lower than that of Linux (for eg. government desktops) is debatable. Can you imagine what it would do for Linux if the German government decided that since there is a domestic supplier of operating systems (SuSE) that must be used even though compatibility with MS Office wouldn't be perfect and even though people would need re-training. And if the French did the same with Mandrake? Why can't governments (and others) see that with a little effort Linux can be considered just as generic an operating system as Windows - why, why, why? If they buy other domestic products simply because they're domestic why not apply the same logic to operating systems since with a little effort they can be just as generic as cars.
Karma. Moderation. Is my
"But the government is supposed to work for us. We are their employers in a perfect world."
Put it this way: the BSA just wrote a European law. Still think the government are working for us?
Read the pdf, what a hodge-podge of unsupported statements. Firstly it is written from the perspective of the "Sponsoring" software companies. As pointed out, it totally ignores the fact that 99% of Government funded in-house code is for internal use. Why? Perhaps because they have specailist needs. How many Defence Departments or Internal Revenue agencies does any nation have.
Suddenly the premise that commercial software houses "do so in order to supply the software on a repeating basis and thereby to generate licensing revenues that allow them to make a profit on their investment" becomes null and void.
Governments do create or sponsor code for distribution to end users or clients, particularly in Health and Internal Revenue. Much of this is distributed free in the interest of eGovernment and reducing costs to the taxpayer. The development platform here is dependant on what the client machines have (usually Win95/98) and they can code it in VB if they are stupid enough. A large segment of the economy is still run on clipper code.
"Such a proposal would inevitably act as a deterrent to commercial involvement in Government sponsored R&D software projects because they would have such a limited opportunity to exploit any commercial gain from any privately owned IPR.." So this reads like they expect to profit from Government funded R&D, I thought this was where stendards otfen arose from due to the long term investment and the free rider effect. Normally, when a company pays you to write code they own the IP and I fail to see why this should not be the case with the application of public money. This effect was again raised yesterday by Hans Reiser. US style Corporate Welfare is perhaps not that appealing to the rest of the world.
Some other points;
Lack of adequate competition in the bid process.....
What they are really saying is that "we want to be protected from competition". Especially from small independant development firms that may be able to deliver on a more cost effective manner and with much less overhead. That would be worse that government bodies buying the development tools and coding it themselves.
Software that would not include leading edge developments.......
Like corporates and Governments implementing JAVA and web services and not waiting for .NET
This doesn't mean "we have established products and would like you to help protect the monopoly positions we have created by lack of interoperability
Very basic software which would only provide minimally useful solutions.....
Ah yeah, like "Hello, Microsoft. We are thinking of standardising on WinServer2003 if you could add...".
Confidentiality issues....
Well dont release the code. And if you do, don't copy any privacy law protected personal data into it.
And finally "For the reasons discussed the setting of a default position for use of restrictive licences such as the GPL, brings with it some commercial disadvantages that may in some cases outweigh the benefits." Read any MS EULA.
I would be interested to see the role IBM really has in this as it smacks of biting the hand, Linux and JAVA seem to be a large factor in the slowing down in the death of the mainframe.
I hope I haven't taken any quotes out of context, but they really need to be speaking to someone like Richard Alston in Australia.
Stopping myself...Abort (core dumped)