Governments push open-source software --and Microsoft is working hard to stop them.

Governments push open-source software --and Microsoft is working hard to stop them.

Post by Paolo Ciambott » Thu, 06 Sep 2001 11:26:50





> Governments around the world have found a new rallying cry--"Software
> libre!"--and Microsoft is working overtime to quell it.

> A recent global wave of legislation is compelling government agencies,
> and in some cases government-owned companies, to use open-source or free
> software unless proprietary software is the only feasible option.

That only makes sense.  If my tax dollars are going to support software
development, then I would like to have some reasonable rights of
public ownership in what I've paid to develop.
 
 
 

Governments push open-source software --and Microsoft is working hard to stop them.

Post by Mike » Fri, 07 Sep 2001 01:03:54





...
> > A recent global wave of legislation is compelling government agencies,
> > and in some cases government-owned companies, to use open-source or free
> > software unless proprietary software is the only feasible option.

> That only makes sense.  If my tax dollars are going to support software
> development, then I would like to have some reasonable rights of
> public ownership in what I've paid to develop.

That's pretty normal, but the original poster is saying that governments
want to compel the _use_ of open source or free software, not its
_development_.

-- Mike --

 
 
 

Governments push open-source software --and Microsoft is working hard to stop them.

Post by Jame » Fri, 07 Sep 2001 04:50:13


On Tue, 04 Sep 2001 19:26:50 -0700, "Paolo Ciambotti"




>> Governments around the world have found a new rallying cry--"Software
>> libre!"--and Microsoft is working overtime to quell it.

>> A recent global wave of legislation is compelling government agencies,
>> and in some cases government-owned companies, to use open-source or free
>> software unless proprietary software is the only feasible option.

>That only makes sense.  If my tax dollars are going to support software
>development, then I would like to have some reasonable rights of
>public ownership in what I've paid to develop.

I agree!...all government funded software should be release under
a BSD style license or public domain...NOT under GPL.

James

 
 
 

Governments push open-source software --and Microsoft is working hard to stop them.

Post by Paolo Ciambott » Fri, 07 Sep 2001 12:16:53




>> That only makes sense.  If my tax dollars are going to support software
>> development, then I would like to have some reasonable rights of public
>> ownership in what I've paid to develop.

> That's pretty normal, but the original poster is saying that governments
> want to compel the _use_ of open source or free software, not its
> _development_.

Sorry.  It's just hard for me to imagine the "use" of Open Source
software without the "development" happening as a natural byproduct.
 
 
 

Governments push open-source software --and Microsoft is working hard to stop them.

Post by Paolo Ciambott » Fri, 07 Sep 2001 12:25:17




>>That only makes sense.  If my tax dollars are going to support software
>>development, then I would like to have some reasonable rights of public
>>ownership in what I've paid to develop.

> I agree!...all government funded software should be release under a BSD
> style license or public domain...NOT under GPL.

Microsoft's implementation of Kerberos is a good example of why this is a
bad idea.

And I retract my original statement.  I'd like to see publically funded
software development patented, copyrighted, and licensed to the highest
bidder.  At least that way, I'm likely to see some return on my
tax investment in the current gormless IP-happy environment.

 
 
 

Governments push open-source software --and Microsoft is working hard to stop them.

Post by Erik Funkenbusc » Sun, 09 Sep 2001 15:06:22





> >>That only makes sense.  If my tax dollars are going to support software
> >>development, then I would like to have some reasonable rights of public
> >>ownership in what I've paid to develop.

> > I agree!...all government funded software should be release under a BSD
> > style license or public domain...NOT under GPL.

> Microsoft's implementation of Kerberos is a good example of why this is a
> bad idea.

No, it's not.  Microsoft didn't use the BSD implementation of Kerberos in
their product, they developed their own from scratch.  If Kerberos had been
GPL there would have been no difference.

Quote:> And I retract my original statement.  I'd like to see publically funded
> software development patented, copyrighted, and licensed to the highest
> bidder.  At least that way, I'm likely to see some return on my
> tax investment in the current gormless IP-happy environment.

Interesting.  If that translates into lowering my taxes, i'd buy into that.
But I doubt that would happen.
 
 
 

Governments push open-source software --and Microsoft is working hard to stop them.

Post by Mark Ke » Mon, 10 Sep 2001 01:17:47







>> >>That only makes sense.  If my tax dollars are going to support software
>> >>development, then I would like to have some reasonable rights of public
>> >>ownership in what I've paid to develop.

>> > I agree!...all government funded software should be release under a BSD
>> > style license or public domain...NOT under GPL.

>> Microsoft's implementation of Kerberos is a good example of why this is a
>> bad idea.

>No, it's not.  Microsoft didn't use the BSD implementation of Kerberos in
>their product, they developed their own from scratch.  If Kerberos had been
>GPL there would have been no difference.

How can you possibly know that?

Quote:

>> And I retract my original statement.  I'd like to see publically funded
>> software development patented, copyrighted, and licensed to the highest
>> bidder.  At least that way, I'm likely to see some return on my
>> tax investment in the current gormless IP-happy environment.

>Interesting.  If that translates into lowering my taxes, i'd buy into that.
>But I doubt that would happen.

Of course it wouldn't.  It will see them increase, because the publicly
funded stuff has to make *exactly* the same progress as the now
secret version through any improvements which are made.  This means
that you have to pay both the company for the product and the
public developper to do the same additional developmement.  The GPL
ensures that whoever makes the improvement, you only need to pay
once.

--
Mark Kent
                                               Take out the ham to mail me.

 
 
 

1. Governments push open-source software!

http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-6996393.html?tag=tp_pr

Even though I'm from the United States, I'm glad
that other countries are embracing open source and trying
to break the lock Microsoft has on the global software
market.

With many of the people in Washington having too much
of a vested interest in keeping the status quo, it's
nice to see that finally a technological revolution
outside the United States may be taking place.

-----=  Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News  =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
 Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers!  ==-----

2. Problem with LinuxThreads and fdopen

3. What percentage of open-source programmers are paid for working on open-source projects?

4. How many people have you gotten Linux working for/ converted to Linux

5. 3004-003 All available login sessions are in use

6. Petition: Federal Government should evaluate Open Source software

7. smbmount and 2.2.x on redhat?

8. Study: Governments need open source software

9. Microsoft Uses Open-Source Code Despite Denying Use of Such Software

10. Microsoft's Government Push

11. ANNOUNCE: Open Source 'Push' software for Linux

12. ANNOUNCE: Open Source 'push' software for Linux