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."
That which is free.
What should I do??
they'd rather sell you their closed source buggy software at over-inflated prices. did you expect "industry leaders" to suggest otherwise?
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
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.'"
On one hand, they do tons of work on GPL'ed software, now here they are against GPL code.
What gives??
Press any key to continue, any other key to quit.
The government is there to hand out taxpayer money to corporations.
It's so obvious.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
telling you not to buy Kentucky Fried Chicken.
DUH.
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!
when your competion give away their software (and a good lot of free help too) is it fair that these firms should go out of buisness (the 1000 lobbying), i thought captitalism was supposed to work where the cheapest/most efficient solution wins , those that can't play , don't.
interesting times indeed
I'm happy to see Microsoft is looking out for governments worldwide, and not just here in the US.
666-607: 6th floor apartment of the beast
The GPL license COULD potential open a business up for a lawsuit, and anyone who reads Slashdot knows that GPL-lovers are very quick to cry for censure of any company suspected of violating the license.
The safest, and most appropriate license for government-funded and government-created software is the BSD license.
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
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
"Hi, we don't like having to compete with these guys. Could you please help us destroy our competition? If you do this, competition between the existing installations will improve! Really!"
* Don't sponsor RMS
* Don't send a gift to Linus
* Never buy a beer from the OSI guys
* [your 'I misunderstood the topic,too'-line here]
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"
From the list above, you can see that some of the most popular open-source technologies are not GPL. "Recommending against the GPL" does not mean "Recommending against open source."
Just something to keep in mind...
Simpli - Your source for San Jose dedicated servers and colocation!
A study commissioned by the fox, today issued a strong warning against putting a lock on the henhouse. "Locks are dangerous things. They can pinch your fingers. They cause changes in behavior that are undesirable."
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
Number of mentions of the word innovations per page is roughtly equivalent to the probability that this report was funded and ghost written by Microsoft.
Lets see: 3 mentions in 4 pages. MS probabilty factor - 75%.
Well now that companies are turning countries into virtual communist controlled economies by lobbying for (and getting) extentions to copyright laws, requirements for manufacturers to implement digital restrictions, and tariffs on blank media, expect more of the same in the future. Ironically, socialist operating systems such as Linux and BSD are the only way to avoid a communist future. Linux is socialist software and is not communist in any way, much like the American Heart Association is a socialistic organization and not associated with communism in the least. Capitalism is dead!
when you head up to the local military base to take an M1A1 Abrahm's for a test spin. You're a tax payer, you paid for the damn thing, about time they let you drive it, right?
I have a feeling the UK's loyal friends within the Commonwealth will have a different opinion.
..."
The Commonwealth looks like it's verging towards a common strategy.
"The OEE and the DTI are considering establishing open-source licence terms as the default for government-funded software"
This sounds like it's swinging the pendulum even further than South African plans.
"When the Government decides to develop software using a restrictive licensing base, such as the GNU GPL, (it) should be aware that this would prevent it from deriving commercial gain
Which would be bad because we all know how much of our software we buy from the British government.
Esteem isn't a zero sum game
I love open source. The GPL is great. But don't force anyone to use it. That defeats the purpose of 'free' software. If someone decides to use open source software, it should be because it is better than the alternative. It shouldn't be because there are no alternatives.
you have to remember that lobbying groups in Parliament are 10 a penny.
You must have gotten quite a deal. Over here, they're a dime a dozen.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
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.
Seriously, don't content yourself with ranting here, exercise your political opinion where it counts, and Fax Your MP about this blatant abuse of our political system.
We all know that Open Source raises the bar for the rest of the industry, encourages competition rather than extinguishes it; make sure your MP does too, and that if he or she doesn't present your view, you may be more chosy with your vote next time round.
Yeah, it's a bitch when a company can't slap a widget onto government funded software and then sell it back. You can see how the GPL might drive bid prices, aka government costs, down. As for quality, it's hard to see how someone can go wrong with GPL'd software.
GPL-lovers are very quick to cry for censure of any company suspected of violating the license.
Hey, that's the way copyright works. Big dumb companies set it up so they can screw you and me. Too bad when it gets used in a way they did not expect. Various programmers are quick to cry foul when they see work they wanted to stay free and are giving away, used by some big dumb company in an abusive manner. You don't think those same big dumb companies hesitate to set their well funded leagal department on individual programmers if they catch a wiff of anything they might lay claim to? Just look at SCO trying to extort the entire world of Unix. Nothing like that can ever come out of free software. Get back in your hole, troll.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Does Intel not realize how many of their processors are running Linux? Are they just telling us to buy AMD?
while IBM is heavy into the opensource movement, they don't always favor the GPL. their eclipse product is licensed under a CPL which is a BSDish license. allows you to release closed source derivitives. As a result, they're using the GTK 2 library as a foundation for their linux SWT toolkit as oppose to QT/KDE. Sun does the same with their NetBeans product with a similar license, except NetBeans is "pure" java and doesn't rely on system gui calls.
Open Source itself isn't a bad thing, it's the viral nature of the GPL that lots of companies don't like. They like to be able to give a little and still release a "Enterprise" or "Enahnced" version that's closed up tight.
Just because you are a member of a group does not mean you always have to agree with the majority.
I know. I'm an American.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
One of the factors highlighted in the ZDNet report is that of commercialisation. The position paper states that using the GPL would remove the option for the government to commercialise and profit from its work.
Call me old fashioned (and having said that I know I'm going to get at least one post that says "You're old fashioned"), but I thought governments were about internal order, external defense and maintenance of currency. Even being relatively liberal they should still only be concerned with generally looking after their citizens, not creating software.
After all, the British govt. providing the NHS really limits its ability to make money by running private hospitals. And if they didn't provide all those policemen they could make a fortune as a private security firm!
Cheers, Paul
It might make MS stuff look better in the short term, but I think we need to send emails etc. to the makers of theres TCO analysis and demand it be included. Why would the cost of interoperability be any less than say education of system Operators.
Once the component is included it is much easier to have a sober debate on the long term cost of "lock-in"
Help fight continental drift.
BAE SYSTEMS is a UK company that has a section operating in the US.
BAE SYSTEMS make commercial and military equipment for the UK govenment.
Check your facts!
---- "I would be careful in separating your weirdness, a good quirky quantum weirdness, from the disturbed weirdnes
The most sensible license for government contracts is no license at all. In other words, public domain.
There is no reason why publically funded IP should be copyrighted by a corporate entity.
I could understand BSD if it was only partially government funded, but for anything paid for by the taxpayers... PD is it.
The world is neither black nor white nor good nor evil, only many shades of CowboyNeal.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yet another well-formed opinion from those who would save us from ourselves, our own prosperity and our own happiness as a society.
It just amazes me that there are still people who listen to these self-important, avaricious cry-babies who have somehow gotten it into their minds that profits from their current business models (without regard for their viability) are an inalienable right.
We need to view corporate relationships with a lot more cynicism than we currently do. The corporation views you as a resource, much like a desk or a computer monitor and will treat you as such. You can't hope they won't turn on you -- you have to expect them to. It's not a matter of "if," it's a matter of "when."
I'm sorry if I come across a bit strongly here, but it's something that very few people in the community actually understand. I think we all want to believe, in our hearts, that companies are made up of people and people are inherently good. Well I'm here to tell you that companies are made up of people and people inherently suck!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
They clearly either misunderstand the GPL or are blatantly lying. The GPL does not require you to disclose anything unless you distribute the modified version.
Thus the MI-5, CIA,CSIS, Interpol, or whatever can freely develop their own internal software under the GPL, and deploy it throughout their systems. The requirement to include source only applies if they distribute the product. I expect intelligence agencies don't normally distribute sensitive software outside the agency.
Shouldn't they be spent on something where the user is completely free to modify - either licensed BSD, or public domain?
In this case, the GPL is exactly the same as the BSD license.
It's only when the user stops being a user and starts being a distributer that the rules change. The GPL does not allow people to stand on the shoulders of giants without a return in contribution.
It's not users (or "beleaguered UK taxpayers") but profiteers that are under additional restriction.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Unlike BSD, the GPL carries a political message in it, and the government would have to back all the statements in GPL such as "All published software should be free software", the definition of "free", etc.
For what it's worth, I personally don't think all software should be free, but more importantly, I disagree with the idea of having to distribute a political message with my software.
All the OSS software I wrote has been released under BSD-like terms, and when I use software in my projects, I give preference to BSD-licensed ones.
grisha.org
You're damn right its tax-payers' dollars we're talking about. Whenever the UK government buys software from Microsoft, IBM, Oracle etcetera, they are essentially converting British Pounds Sterling into US Dollars and sending them off to US-owned companies. At least with GPL software its less likely to be spent improving a foreign economy, as we have as much chance to compete here in the UK, what with having access to the source code of this non-proprietary software.
You mean the way the user is able to modify MS Windows, MS Office, Oracle DB, Adobe Acrobat, IIS, and all the other software that government purchases with taxpayer dollars. Methinks you have lost perspective.
Not what the government has purchased with tax dollars but what the government has developed with tax dollars.
One of the previous arguments of proprietary vendors is that a governament shouldn't base their decisions on the license of the software, specifically, the GPL. Instead, governament should decide based on the functionalities of the software. For example, Microsoft Office's Word is the best word processor available, so the governament should buy it, since it meets the user's demands.
Now, the table have turned. These UK lobbists are asking to deny a software based on its license, and that it doesn't matter if it is the best tool for the job. As long as it is GPL, it is wrong.
Highly amusing. It only indicates that proprietary vendors are shooting everywhere hoping that one of their arguments convince someone. And that the "feature-rich" argument, after all, isn't working.
Buy a Nintendo DS Lite
In addition to the 75% MS probability factor, there's also a 150% chance Ballmer wrote it himself. The word "developers" is mentioned 6 times in those 4 pages.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
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
IBM wants to sell their own programs, and reduce the profit of other corporations, it's called competition. So if they can sell Linux + IBM stuff for less (or with higher profit margin) than MS + IBM they will. They tried themselves with OS/2 but couldn't make it happen, so better with "noone" than somebody else.
Off-the-shelf software is becoming a commodity, where you can get your basic OS/office pack from Linux. IBM wants to capitalize on those special use systems that OSS will never make because not enough people are interested in making. Government software may definately be one of them, I'm not talking about your average secretary office pack but real custom made stuff, or at least obscure enough you won't find any decent OSS alternative on Linux, or any alternative at all.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
True, but when you make money, the government makes money.
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?
There may in some cases be a conflict between the Government's desire to maintain confidentiality and the requirement to disclose the software laid down by a restrictive licence, to the extent that the source code itself discloses attributes about the Government body that are regarded as confidential
Absolutely incorrect.
The GPL does not in any way cover internal distribution. This is not the same as public distribution. Making modifications and keeping them within your company, but not releasing the source, is completely uncovered by the GPL.
In regards to software that the government funds, the government should NEVER fund proprietary software development (except for things which are meant to always be secret, like the US govt's program to predict how radar bounces off of curved surfaces). Public money should not be used to create private information, or proprietary programs, which the public then has to pay for again.
In regards to what software is acceptable for the government, this organization's concerns about the GPL are bogus, and anything they say should be ignored. Irrelevant of the truth, they are going to advocate the use of proprietary software. It benefits them.
The proper course of action is for the government to give strong consideration to FOSS, and if it decides against using FOSS, it should have to publish and explanation of it's decision to the public. In fact, any decisions on what software the government uses should be justified to the public, and the government should be required to consider FOSS, for the very frequent cost advantages of using it. The government has an obligation to tax-payers to consider what is likely to in most cases be a less costly solution.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
IBM is a huuuuuge comapny. Just because one tiny part of one division supports Linux, doesn't mean that the entire company runs on Linux/OSS software. In fact, the people that I know at IBM have never even *seen* Linux before. OSS is a new and very tiny part of IBM's business. They are by no means an OSS company. They're just ccovering all of their bases.
It is not free. It is funded by 40 percent of my salary, 75% of what I pay for fuel, 30+% of what I pay for food and goods (delivery and other fuel related expenses are calculated before VAT), 25% of my company's profits, ad fscking naseum.
Frankly anything government funded should be either BSD or public domain at least in countries with extortionate taxation like UK. The taxpayer has payed for it 100 times. He should be entitled to use it as he sees fit.
So no closed source, royalty shit either. I have payd for it, I am fscking entitled to use it. So just play good ole BSD.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
Businesses are geared to think only in terms of how profitable a certain action can be, and are incorrectly projecting that necessity-for-profit onto others. Intellect appears to be trying to equate their perception of a reduced commercial value of GPL'd software to a reduced societal value of GPL'd software. And while the former is an unproven assertion at best, the latter is downright wrong.
Should we abandon the creation of roads where the cost of building a new highway exceeds the revenue of the resulting taxes? What about housing for the poor? Surely we're not "deriving commercial gain" out of those projects?
Seems to me this is yet another case where commercial organizations need to be reminded by the public that they exist only at the pleasure of the populace, and by their grace. When a commercial organization (or other entity) begins to promote it's own interests over the advancement of the society as a whole, that society is correct in recognising such an organization as hostile.
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
I don't think you have to expect much from the EU. Just this week the juridical department of the europarliament approved the new proposal for allowing software patents (and therefore . The woman responsible for preparing the final decision-making - a british labour member of the europarliament: Arlene McCarty somehow is in a lot of hurry to force this through by 30 june already. I think she has a hidden agenda.
Anyway - all pro-Open Source talk from the EU IMHO is just a lot of nice words and no action while at the same time they really don't understand what they're talking about and give more and more away to big multinationals...
Unfortunately I've only got a link about the news in dutch, but there's a petition to cut this crap over here. If you agree with what it states, please sign it.
0x or or snor perron?!
Governments hate the idea of open-ness.
--- Yx3 = Delilah ---
Suppose I am a government funded researcher. To be precise, people and businesses in my country pay their taxes and the government awards me some of this money to fund a new software system. Suppose my system is useful for SMEs to quickly help them to communicate opportunities to do business. It doesn't matter what it does exactly; the key is that there is communication between different organizations and that this is facilitated by my government-funded project. If I GPL this software, everyone in the country gets to use the software. If you're so inclined, you could go into business to try to make money from the software; you could improve the interface, or make it easier to search for partnerships, or whatever. Of course, you must GPL your changes, but you might be the clear leaders in the installation and configuration of this SW, so you could make some money. In any case, whether you can make money or not, the taxpayers do not lose out.
Suppose now that the software is released into the public domain, or even under a BSD licence. Suppose further that half-a-dozen firms spot a market opportunity to improve this project and make a commercial product out of the system. This is fine in principle, but if one of those six firms is Microsoft, we have an immediate problem. MS could decide to integrate the system into MS Outlook; perhaps the system uses email to communicate opportunities. We still have no problem of course, because there are five other competitors, any of whom could come up with a better approach to improving the product. Perhaps some of them will flourish in organizations which do not use Outlook for whatever reason.
However, if MS wishes to, they can simply make a subtle change to the protocol used by their version of the software. Because MS Windows is universal, this new protocol becomes the de facto standard. Of course, even this wouldn't be a problem, so long as MS published their changes to the protocol.
Suppose however that MS declines to publish their changes to the protocol. Our five other competitors are pushed out, and whatever money there is to be made from the software will accrue to Microsoft. For all I know, MS are paying a huge amount of tax, and perhaps they should have the opportunity to make a killing like this. The problem is that all the other taxpayers get to pay twice; they funded the original software with their taxes. And now if they want to get the benefit from the money they "invested" before, they have to pay again, this time to Microsoft. Of course you could argue that MS might have made significant improvements, but I don't think that argument holds, because they wouldn't have to make any useful changes to effectively require taxpayers to pay again for what they have already funded. All Microsoft needs to do is to make some subtle and unimportant and secret change to the communication protocol and they've made an instant market for themselves (or, more accurately, they've damaged another market).
I think that this is the key problem with BSD and public domain licensing for taxpayer-funded software.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
British citizens.
Now is the time to write your MP. Write him a _polite_ letter (snail mail is best in this case), in which you explain to him that GPL is good, esp. for government funded software. Read the comments in this thread, to get some arguments.
The most important thing is that you stress that this is important to you. Important decisions win votes.
the pun is mightier than the sword
Shouldn't they be spent on something where the user is completely free to modify - either licensed BSD, or public domain?
Why should they? Your tax payer dollars pay for your city park, yet you aren't free to set up a business in your city park; in fact, what you can do in your city park is quite restricted. And the purpose of those rules is so that everybody can enjoy the city park.
It's quite analogous with the GPL: tax payer dollars pay for the software, and the GPL ensures that the software remains there to be enjoyed by everybody.
Likewise, the fact that tax payer dollars pay for software development doesn't mean that anybody should be able to use that software for whatever they please.
Keep in mind that the same kind of people who make this argument against the GPL now had not trouble making the argument a few years ago that governments should pay for software development in the private sector and then leave ownership of that software with the companies that developed it.
You can read the original Intellect's analysis in here.
The ZDNet article misinterprets many things Intellect suggest:
1. Intellect does not suggest OSS licenses are all bad. Only GNU GPL could be problematic for the Government uses (ZDNet's title is so misleading)
2. The "GPL not suitable for secretive government bodies" is also overblown. The Intellect just suggests that if the Government wants to maintain confidential codes, they can't do it under GPL.
All in all it's fair to recommend the Government not going for 1 type of development model/license by default. The only question I have on the Intellect's analysis is that they suggested that businesses can't get back value of their IP under GPL. As far as I understand, GPL does not require distributing their software free (as in beer), nor giving up the right of redistribution (so I can't distribute a piece of GPL software in which the copywrite holder does not grant me the redistribution rights.) In that sense, GPL won't hinder commercial interest in software development as suggested in Intellect's paper, and the whole analysis could falls apart. But I'm not sure I'm correct on the GPL, better have someone more familiar with GPL to point it out.
A sig is redundant.
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
The GPL does no such thing. It does not prohibit dual licensing. These companies are perfectly free to offer to buy the rights to incorporate the code under another license directly from the copyright holders.
Now why should the government, in other words *you*, via your tax dollars, be financing work which proprietary software vendors can then appropriate for nothing and sell at a profit? Welfare programs should be reserved for people that need help, not Bill Gates.
Software which all the taxpayers pay for should be available to all taxpayers. The rights to any additional software should be reserved to those who invested in the salaries of the programmers who developed the software. IMHO, government programs should be reserved for all citizens, not just the rich OR the poor.
I'm the lead developer of LISSARD, an open-source school administration system. I am having discussions with someone in the U.K. who is very interested in free software, and in particular, using LISSARD in several of the schools he represents.
As I understand it, some U.K. courts have recently ordered their current proprietary administrative system to open up their database backend, opening that market to competition. That's where LISSARD comes in. Anyway, no one (in those schools, at least) likes the idea of being tied to a single vendor, which is why the open-source model is much more attractive. (Don't like it? Hire someone to change it.)
Also, this person is actively trying to deploy open-source software wherever possible, with moderate amounts of success so far. The real obstacle, as far as he can tell, is that most people are of the "you get what you pay for" mindset. (To which I respond "I'll take your money
All in all, good times to be OSS.
"...with GPL software its less likely..."
..."
.`~.'".,,.'~".,,.".
These two words, it's and its, are one of the trickiest in the English language. Here's a little mnemonic that may help:
Posessive "its" doesn't posess an apostrophe.
Using this little phrase, you can tell that your usage above is a contraction (it is less likely...), and hence should read:
"...with GPL software it's less likely
Magic Grammar Dust for you:
Considering the increasing popularity of open source alternatives amongst government circles in other European Union member states, this effort will be a waste. I'm sure its a safe bet it will become a European Commission code to use open source platforms such as Linux for member state governments...if such legislation is sent to the European Parliament, all of the greens/socialists/leftists/anarchists/communists and crazy French peasant tractor driver respresentatives (MEPs) will vote gleefully for an act aimed at punishing an American cash-cow such as Microsoft.
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
If a piece of Governement funded software were to be subject to a restrictive license, such as the GNU GPL, commercial companies would often not see a benefit in entering tinto such an agreement because:
1) There is a limited amount of money that could be made from the original development because of the limited opportunity for further revenue.
2) They may not want to make public and available for free use any of their IPR that is employed in the development.
Feh. If in today's economy you've got someone balking at developing FOSS, then you can just find someone else. There are plenty of software companies who are hungry for work. They're not worried about future profits, because they're trying to stay in business today.
This is just B.S. cooked up by our "betters" in the IT industry to try to keep their pockets lined with taxpayer cash.
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)
This reminds me of those occasional commercials that the UFCW or Teamsters unions will do when urging a boycott of a particular independent non-union supermarket or two - buy ad time, say don't buy, and watch as their commercials had no effect.
This sig no verb.
there's no magic machine that changes pounds into dollars. american companies are forced to either to sell the pounds at the market (driving down the pound, thus increasing british exports), or to invest in the british capital markets which is also good for british investors. so basically quit whining you silly protectionist.
All "GPL==restrictive", "BSD license=free" posts are real nonsense! Where are the arguments for that?
The GPL and FreeBSD licenses are restrictive to users in almost the same way. They can use software under both licences free (once they obtained it), make changes and let everyone copy it. Only difference is that the BSD license asks to leave the advertisement intact and the GPL to provide source code.
But then you are already on a developing level. The only difference between the licenses is on this level. This does not make one license more restrictive than the other, the restrictions are just different! The GPL say you give changes backs (restriction for the company further developing the source) and the BSD license restricts the developer (the developer can not develop further on his own source if a company patched a few lines proprietarily).
Anyway the government buys/gets a product and uses it, so the GPL does not restrict them.
However companies are restricted, so they don't want to deal with GPL (as in article), but developer are restriced with BSD license, so they (hopefully..) want to use the GPL.
Personally, I believe as a businessman, technician and tax payer that open source is better.
Companies can make plenty of money from support and enhancement to the client. Government can retain the source and/or give some modifications back to the community. And govenment gets many options on suppliers.
I recently heard of a company who had just the object code, and the contractor pissed off to the other side of the world with the source code. Also, many companies have maybe 2 or 3 people who can do parts of the system - open source creates more developers with mature experience in a product.
And what if you find a bug in Microsoft software. Can you get it fixed right away? Not necessarily. You have to hope that MS take it seriously enough to do it. With OSS your chances are much higher, or you can do it yourself.
However a simple copyight notice or note in some help files is different.
BSD is alot more friendly in this regard. MS for example rarely even mentions the university of california qoute. Linux does not either unless you view the source.
BSD is deffinetly more corporate friendly. This is why Apple chose that instead of Linux when designing MacOSX. Their lawyers rightfully were worried that the FSF might sue them for keeping Aqua and other apps closed that run on top of the os. After all its linked to the operating system right?
This is a fuzzy area that SCO and MS have been going after. We know this is probably BS but in Canada a lawsuit was won just for linking! Risk managment is important in any business decision. BSD is just less risky in this regards and is considered more safe.
The GPL was designed to make all software free. Go read about RMS viewpoints. He is quite radical. BSD is a more community and academic standard to benefit everyone.
http://saveie6.com/
That the receiver may not want it is no reason to violate the GPL. If you distribute the binary code, you must distribute the source code.
Just include the source code in the "package".
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
I was actually mostly objecting to his notion that:
... "
:)
"Just because one tiny part of one division supports Linux
This is incorrect.
"OSS is a new and very tiny part of IBM's busines"
Also incorrect (more like corporate "core strategy", but whatever)
So, I disagree with the basis for the conclusions (facts all wrong), and also disagree with the conclusions (personal opinion, but I differ). That's all.
PS
IBM has commited that all of its hardware will run Linux. The customer can still choose MS, but at least they have the choice of using nothing but Linux when they buy IBM hardware (and, I'm sure even more profitable than hardware for IBM, services)
"...industry body backed by Microsoft..."
Of course they would tell them not to buy open-source/GPL software, or any other software for that matter, because they aren't buying M$.
That seems odd. I thought IBM was the great defender of the GPL. What with the IBM Linux servers, and SCOX vs IBM case, and all.
I'd be very surprised if this organization has 100% of it's members asking them to do this, since IBM aggressively markets Linux solutions.
Somebody in the media please ask IBM for a comment.