Response to the Federal govt RFI
S P Arif Sahari Wibowo
arifsaha-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org
Wed Feb 18 15:38:11 UTC 2009
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> As many of you know the Canadian government has produced a
> formal Request for Information (RFI) regarding "no cost
> software" (which lumps together FOSS as well as
> free-to-download proprietary).
For most people to be able to distinguish start by ability to
name; so I suggest you more consistently throw the term "Free
Open Source Software" and the acronym "FOSS". Not sure whether
it is true that governmental entities do like acronyms, but when
they start using the term FOSS around they may be able to see it
easier that it is not just "no cost software".
As you already said the RFI treated as if requesting information
from vendors. I think this is normal: they are customer, and may
not yet ready to become more than just customer. So the answer
should also provide for a customer, i.e. if for plain customer,
what is the advantage of FOSS? That said, it can be mentioned as
well that FOSS allow various degree of participation, from
primary maintainer, a partner, to simply a customer.
As simple customer, in short term there is no much different
between FOSS or proprietary software (they still need to find a
vendor to provide service and support for the software), but the
main advantage with FOSS is that there is much less (if any)
dependency to any vendor: it will be much easier for the
customer to switch vendor in the end of a contract, in some case
with keeping all the installation intact. New vendor can just
come in and take the service and support of previously installed
software, since no vendor have exclusive ownership and knowledge
about the software. This can go to Q8.
> They do not limit re-distribution;
...
> They allow and encourage (and in some licenses they require)
> that modifications are also distributed with these same
> charateristics
The last clause - when it is required - can be seen as some kind
of limitation to the first.
> Q4. How should existing Government Furnished Equipment,
> Services, Service Level Agreements and internal resources be
> considered when evaluating the usage of No Charge Licensed
> Software?
One thing I can think of is that FOSS work better with equipment
which specification is open or known. So it may have issue with
new equipment with secretive or license protected specification,
but in the other hand it may more easily fitted to legacy
equipment for which vendor does not fully support anymore.
As simple customer, SLA and resources should be the same as
other software. Can point out again that they have choice to
become more than simply customer and have their own internal
resources provide part of the service and support in addition to
vendor.
> Q8. How does the technology factor into the evaluation
> consideration, such as ability to maintain and evergreen?
What is evergreen? As said above it actually easier to maintain
FOSS, since it will much less driven by vendor needs (i.e.
greed).
> Q10. What impact will No Charge Licensed Software have on
> Government Licensed End-User Networks
What is "Government Licensed End-User Networks"?
--
(stephan paul) Arif Sahari Wibowo
_____ _____ _____ _____
/____ /____/ /____/ /____
_____/ / / / _____/ http://www.arifsaha.com/
--
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
More information about the Legacy
mailing list