Re: How to talk my company into allowing OpenG usage?

Derrick; Well, since I am not sure who is your customer, the following answer may apply completely, partially or not at all. My assumption to think that the answer may apply to you is because of the phrase "defense contractor". On a higher level, the problem you are facing is called Assurance:

Re: How to talk my company into allowing OpenG usage?

Craig Graham wrote: Rolf Kalbermatter wrote: No- the assumption is that someone else is liable if it goes pear shaped. If you buy a product and at some later date it doesn't do as advertised you can blame (perhaps also legally) the supplier. If it's open source, you can't. I think this isn't base

Re: How to talk my company into allowing OpenG usage?

> You get what you pay for; if it's cheap or free it's crap. And some opinions fit into that category too, but it is best not to generalize ;-) One should always perform an evaluation of the tools (and advice) they are going to use, prior to using them. If they meet your standards and require

Re: How to talk my company into allowing OpenG usage?

>>1) You get what you pay for; if it's cheap or free it's crap. Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but, if they want to pay money for it, they can. (Give it as a donation to OpenG. ) What I am trying to say is that, AFAIK, the term "free" in the open source philosophy is not one of "free of cost

Re: How to talk my company into allowing OpenG usage?

> Of course, I have no idea what is Jim's or the other OpenG developers' policy on receiving money. I am just thinking out loud. If you follow the "Support this project" link from OpenG.org , you will see the following: --

Re: How to talk my company into allowing OpenG usage?

Rolf Kalbermatter wrote: > "Swinarsky, DJ Derrick (5453) @ IS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Well, so the assumption is that software like LabVIEW from NI or > Windows > or whatever from MS are reliable, while Open Source isn't? Talking > about unbiased prejudice! No- the assumption is that someone else

Re: How to talk my company into allowing OpenG usage?

"Swinarsky, DJ Derrick (5453) @ IS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Just curious if anyone has any tips on convincing the corporate types that >using software developed by the opensource community is a GOOD thing. I >would love to be allowed to use all the OpenG tools and think that many in >my group would

Re: How to talk my company into allowing OpenG usage?

> Subject: Re: How to talk my company into allowing OpenG usage? > From: "Jim Kring" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 17:11:49 -0700 > > PS - Have you read your NI Software License Agreement lately? Is your > application authorized and will it

Re: How to talk my company into allowing OpenG usage?

One other detail to think about. Are you intending to use this code for internal use only? If so, then why should anyone care how you get your code? I work for a large defense contractor as well, and no one seems to mind as long as I get the job done and actually have all the source. (although

RE: How to talk my company into allowing OpenG usage?

I'm not really an expert to answer this question but I don't need to be, there are hundreds of others that have gone down your path before. Here is a link to dozens of documents that show the US government and other governments around the world are embracing the Open Source movement. Since the DO

Re: How to talk my company into allowing OpenG usage?

Swinarsky, DJ Derrick (5453) @ IS wrote: > Just curious if anyone has any tips on convincing the corporate types > that using software developed by the opensource community is a GOOD > thing. I would love to be allowed to use all the OpenG tools and > think that many in my group would also benefit

Re: How to talk my company into allowing OpenG usage?

At 3:21 PM -0500 4/14/04, Swinarsky, DJ Derrick (5453) @ IS wrote: Problem is that I work for a big defense contractor that is not too keen about the idea of opensource. Have some paranoid individuals somewhere in the chain that think code developed on sourceforge is not reliable and shouldn't be