http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,8381302%5E15441%5E%5Enbv%5E15306-15319,00.htmlAustralia at the government level has a long way to go with OS. We have had furious (and expensive) fights in the past, with the idiot lawyers in the federal government who cannot grasp the concept that software is not an object, say, like a bridge or building that some contractor might build (only one of). I'm sure Horst, Tim, and others here have had similar experiences. Actually, one of the reasons openEHR was created as a proper legal organisation in the UK was so it could act as an IP-holder, acceptable to government parties. Since this event (which cost UCL a nice lot of legal fees), the Aust government at least accepts the argument that if something is to be open sourced, it can be safely given to openEHR (or some similar body) and it will be 'protected-in-the-public' in a legally defensible way.
The decision. Was it based on the middle path or the money path?
:)
but let's not be depressed! Anyone who expects OS to be created as a principle from the top down rather than the bottom up is probably dreaming.
- thomas beale
