Response to the Federal govt RFI

[Mike Kallies]

On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 8:48 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan-ieNeDk6JonTYtjvyW6yDsg at public.gmane.org> wrote:
....
>
> Q1. In the Overview, the Crown provided a definition for No
> Charge Licensed Software. Is this an appropriate definition?
>
>
> No, it is not appropriate.
....

Hello Evan,

I think after you describe this item, there's  not much point in
answering their other questions.   They need to understand the
difference, else they'll cherry-pick facts from your response to suit
whatever agenda they like such as:

"...we have serious concerns about the limitations, often hidden,
within free-proprietary software...."

You know how people read these things.

On a side note, it disturbs me that they're talking about this stuff
like they're talking about a vendor.  They should be looking at it as
participating in the community... which is what government should be
doing.

<http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FOSS_Open_Standards/Government_National_Open_Standards_Policies_and_Initiatives>

The alternative is sending taxpayer dollars to a company which had
kept them on an hardware and software upgrade treadmill since
Win95/Office 95.

-Mike
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists