Response to the Federal govt RFI

[Evan Leibovitch]

S P Arif Sahari Wibowo wrote:
> 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".
For reasons I don't want to review at this time I stick with the term
"open source software" and contrast it to "free-proprietary" downloads.

I am fully aware of the rationale behind "FOSS", "FLOSS", "F/LOSS", all
of which I consider a linguistic botch to serve a political agenda which
is out of place in the the RFI.


> 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?

As I read it, the RFI is **NOT** asking the question "should we use open
source" but rather "if we do, how do our policies, processes and
expectations need to change?"

The Canadian government is already using open source, and it's trying to
come to grips with how to reconcile open source methods and models with
its existing ways of obtaining and using software.

Well, that's how *I* read the RFI. It's not my intent to fill my answer
with advocacy; I'm sure there are others who will. :-)

What is important is to understand that the Crown may indeed want to be
a simple consumer and not a partner, developer, maintainer, or community
participant. Part of my answer describes how they do that (by
contracting service providers that *are* sufficiently plugged in).

- Evan

--
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