On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Wesley Parish wrote:
For what it's worth, I wrote the PM an Open Letter a few years ago on the
"cuddle-up-to-Microsoft" Government Shared Source policy, which I thought as
useful as the proverbial tits-on-a-bull.
At least there is one party that has the right attitude on th
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 08:53:17 +1300 (NZDT)
Steve Holdoway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This piece was brought to my attention by /. this morning. What it's a
> piece of, I'm not too sure. IMO Chapmann Tripp should be shot for using
> such inflammatory language, but I suppose that without any licens
On Saturday 04 March 2006 22:06, Zane Gilmore wrote:
> I have just got back from the GOVIS Open Source seminar.
> http://www.govis.org.nz/oss2006/oss2006.htm
> There were a lot of government IT managers there.
>
> One of the speakers was the author of this paper.
> At the time I had just spent the
One of the Groklawyers posted a comment that the SSC was drafting a Bill to
make Software Patents possible in NZ.
http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20060301213210833&title=The+NZ+%
26quot%3BGet+the+Facts%26quot%
3B+Style++Report&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=415176#c
I have just got back from the GOVIS Open Source seminar.
http://www.govis.org.nz/oss2006/oss2006.htm
There were a lot of government IT managers there.
One of the speakers was the author of this paper.
At the time I had just spent the last day and night cut off from the
internet and had not heard
On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 08:53 +1300, Steve Holdoway wrote:
> This piece was brought to my attention by /. this morning. What it's a
> piece of, I'm not too sure. IMO Chapmann Tripp should be shot for
> using
> such inflammatory language, but I suppose that without any licenses to
> write, they'd be g
> matter... is software treated the same as hardware as far as the law
> is concerned?
In NZ, in theory, yes. In practice, ROTFL
It boils down to "does it do for the purpose it was bought", which means
the buyer would have had to specify the purpose (does anyone?), and I
guess nobody ha
Quoting David Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mar 2, 2006, at 10:38 AM, Christopher Sawtell wrote:
>
> > He's wanting suppliers to warrant the performance of GPL software,
> > yet he
> > fails to note how (in)effective any supposed warrant of commercial
> and
> > propriety software actually is in
On Mar 2, 2006, at 9:45 AM, stringer wrote:
OK I'm no expert in this area, but as I understand it, even Windows
uses some OSS code (eg for its TCP/IP stack?) so clause 64 suggests
the government should refuse to use Windows unless the TCP/IP stack
is removed?
Not such a bad idea. It'd ce
On Mar 2, 2006, at 10:38 AM, Christopher Sawtell wrote:
He's wanting suppliers to warrant the performance of GPL software,
yet he
fails to note how (in)effective any supposed warrant of commercial and
propriety software actually is in practice? Anybody managed to get
a cent
out of a commerc
For what it's worth, I wrote the PM an Open Letter a few years ago on the
"cuddle-up-to-Microsoft" Government Shared Source policy, which I thought as
useful as the proverbial tits-on-a-bull.
My main points were security-related, and working with MS stuff on an almost
daily basis, I can see that I
lawyer="Chapman Tripp & Assoc"
if [$ADVICE_SOURCE == $lawyer]
while pontificating_about_open_source
do
open_mouth();
insert_foot();
done
fi
This code is released under the 'evil' licence.
If you
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Steve Holdoway wrote:
This piece was brought to my attention by /. this morning. What it's a
piece of, I'm not too sure. IMO Chapmann Tripp should be shot for using
such inflammatory language, but I suppose that without any licenses to
write, they'd be going out of business.
x27;linux-users@it.canterbury.ac.nz'
Subject: Re: OSS policy recommendations to the NZ govt
The document published at
http://www.e.govt.nz/policy/open-source/open-source-legal is pure and utter
drivel.
There is a complete failure to recognise that Application Software is not
the same as D
The document published at
http://www.e.govt.nz/policy/open-source/open-source-legal is pure and utter
drivel.
There is a complete failure to recognise that Application Software is not
the same as Data.
No licence other than the author's copyright would apply to a document saved
in any application
Apparently there's a lot of discussion of this over at NZOSS-openchat,
which might be a more appropriate forum.
-jim
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 10:38:23AM +1300, Christopher Sawtell wrote:
> On Thursday 02 March 2006 08:53, Steve Holdoway wrote:
> > This piece was brought to my attention by /. this
On Thursday 02 March 2006 08:53, Steve Holdoway wrote:
> This piece was brought to my attention by /. this morning. What it's a
> piece of, I'm not too sure. IMO Chapmann Tripp should be shot for using
> such inflammatory language, but I suppose that without any licenses to
> write, they'd be going
OK I'm no expert in this area, but as I understand it, even Windows uses
some OSS code (eg for its TCP/IP stack?) so clause 64 suggests the
government should refuse to use Windows unless the TCP/IP stack is removed?
LOL
At 08:53 2/03/06 +1300, you wrote:
This piece was brought to my attention
This piece was brought to my attention by /. this morning. What it's a
piece of, I'm not too sure. IMO Chapmann Tripp should be shot for using
such inflammatory language, but I suppose that without any licenses to
write, they'd be going out of business. Altruism isn't a word they
understand in this
19 matches
Mail list logo
