Hi Rage! On 9/22/06, Rage Callao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but we do seem to agree on some points here such as: 1. That government should only acquire software wherein it has access to the source code. 2. That government should be free to modify the code by itself or through third party developers to suit its purposes. 3. That government should be able to use the software indefinitely. 4. That government should only acquire software that fulfills its requirements.
Yes! I believe we're both in agreement in these above 4 things.
5. That government can adopt standards on what it deems acceptable licenses when it purchases software.
This is a little vague for my taste though... But essentially, the use of open standards technologies is what I'm after. I don't know what you mean by "adopt standards on what it deems acceptable licenses".
So supposing that under this bill, a software provider were to satisfy all these requirements in their licensing terms, are they already qualified to bid for government projects?
Yes, the software should be qualified for use by government with the above terms (or three original terms I have posted earlier).
If they were to include in their licensing terms that the government must indemnify them for, say, loss of income resulting from the use of a third party of their source code for projects outside of government where the government had not sufficiently taken measures (like NDAs, MOAs) to protect that source code from such misuse, would that licensing term also qualify for the bid?
Yes, they should qualify for the bid. The government, much like any other entity is bound to operate within the laws in which it itself promulgates. If there is provable cause for liability on the part of government, then it should be held responsible just like any other entity.
What if the terms also included that government should only use, for instance, the software provider's development tools to modify the software, will that qualify as well?
Then the government is no longer free to modify the source code as they see fit right? This can be arguable, and on a case to case basis, but I'm tempted to say no because it's a restriction on the modification of the source code. Conversely, as long as the development tools are subject to the same stipulations that the produced software need to be licensed under will the development tools be made qualified for government use. That means, the development tools themselves should have the source accessible by government, that the government may modify the sources of the development tools as it sees fit. :-)
Please clarify.
There are infitely many more arguments that may come the way of this type of bill, but undeniably it allows for more leeway than just saying "only FOSS will be used by the government". -- Dean Michael C. Berris C++ Software Architect Orange and Bronze Software Labs, Ltd. Co. web: http://software.orangeandbronze.com/ email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mobile: +63 928 7291459 phone: +63 2 8943415 other: +1 408 4049532 blogs: http://mikhailberis.blogspot.com http://3w-agility.blogspot.com http://cplusplus-soup.blogspot.com _________________________________________________ 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
