On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 16:13 +0800, Dean Michael Berris wrote: > Hi Rage, > > On 9/22/06, Rage Callao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Dean, > > > > On 9/22/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Well, then make certain "standards" regarding the contents of the > > > softare licenses and not the type of license the software comes in. It > > > shouldn't matter that it's a FOSS license which the OSI determines, or > > > a license that simply allows the government to use the software and > > > modify it so long as the government doesn't transfer the > > > redistribution rights to the third party developers who will modify it > > > in the future. > > > > Are you saying its ok for the government to mandate that source code > > be made available to the government when it purchases software as long > > as government doesn't allow subsequent developers who will have access > > to the code the right to use it for anything else other than the > > original purpose for which it had been acquired? > > > > What I'm saying is that it's alright for government to say that "for > all further ICT projects wherein software will have to be > procured/acquired, that the software be licensed such that the license > allows the Philippine government to get a copy of the source code, > have rights to use the source code and resulting compiled binaries (if > any) indefinitely across all government owned and controlled agencies > and departments, and be able to modify the source code either through > its ICT agencies/departments or by a third party.".
This is what FOSS licenses can do right? > If the license disallows third party developers contracted by > government from using the source code to the software product outside > of the purposes of government use (i.e. covered by an NDA, or MOA, > binding the third party developer to legal contract to promise to not > use the source code for private purposes), then I don't care -- just So you mean that the contractors should set additional conditions on how the control of the source code should be governed? Or should it be the government who'd set the conditions? This proposal of yours reeks of arrogance on part of the contractors imho. > as long as the above three conditions hold. If the license also > requires that you send a post-card to the author for every > installation of the software, it shouldn't matter. I just want This matters a lot. Consider if the original developer tanks out of business, without the original company being the copyright holder, no one could legally do anything with the code. Your suggestion calls up for the drafting of YET ANOTHER LICENSE, which is already done by FOSS licenses. Why reinvent the wheel? You do know that drafting licenses (or any contract thereof) is quite laborious at the very least. -- Paolo Alexis Falcone [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________ Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List [email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
