Not just US Govt Michiel, i have a contract with a large US company which has specified in my contract that I not use open source products. They obviously consider that Remdy does not fall under that banner.
Matt > I'm not a US citizen so I might have missed something here. Why would > Remedy > 7.5 not be allowed at government clients? Because it contains open source? > It still is a closed-source product, but it just has some components that > use open source software. In the 7.5 version this is pretty visible: it's > the Eclipse-based Developer Studio. But for quite some time Remedy has > included Open Source components; they always shipped the product with a > copy > of the different (Apache- and Gnu-) licenses. Since 7.1 the default java > servlet engine switched to Tomcat, which is open source. I believe the ICU > unicode component is present since version 6 and the Xerces and Xalan > components - all open source - even longer. So my point is, if the US > Government is not allowed to use product that contain open source software > components, Remedy shouldn't have been allowed for years. > > The statement William makes on being able to call something in the middle > of > the night is not valid in my opinion; if you have a support contract you > can > call BMC any time of day (or business hours only - depending on your > support > contract.. ;-) ) if you have any problems with the BMC product. It does > not > matter if the problem is with the open- or the closed source component, > the > very same service levels apply. > > In The Netherlands the situation is 100% different; a law has passed to > support Open Source software. In the public sector, Open Source software > should be used if possible. If your organisation wants to use closed > source, > you have to prove that you need certain features that are not present in > an > open source product before you can spend tax payer's money on expensive > solutions... > See also this publication on the subject: > http://appz.ez.nl/publicaties/pdfs/07ET15.pdf > > Kind regards, > -- > Michiel Beijen > Software Consultant > +31 6 - 457 42 418 > Bee Free IT + http://beefreeit.nl > > > On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 01:49, Will Du Chene <arsl...@rowofpines.net> > wrote: > >> ** >> >> John, that was good.. I laughed out loud here. >> >> But you're right on track: government is dang skittish when it comes to >> open source products. There seems to be this mindset that, so long as >> they >> buy their products from a 'company' per se, that the world will turn, >> classical music will play and daisies will sprout from the backsides of >> their users. >> >> After all of these years, the only thing that I can track that mindset >> to >> is that they want a security blanket. They want their warm fuzzies and >> their >> favorite, nibbled-on-the-corner and >> been-through-the-washer-a-bazillion-times blanket. They want to be able >> to >> have someone to call at 4am and cry to when their application dies. The >> same >> is true of hiring time. They want to be able to hire someone who already >> has >> managed a particular application, or suite of applications. >> >> We've all heard the 'total cost of ownership' and 'supportability' >> lectures, right? This is the way that the industry wants it. Independent >> thought, and God forbid, action, is almost heresy. >> >> Is this the right approach? Well, I suppose it depends on your >> perspective. >> >> To that end, any software application, be it vastly superior in terms of >> design, will always face an up hill battle__Platinum Sponsor: RMI >> Solutions >> ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" html___ >> > > _______________________________________________________________________________ > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org > Platinum Sponsor: RMI Solutions ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" > _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: RMI Solutions ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
