Second draft of RFI response

[D. Hugh Redelmeier]

| From: Evan Leibovitch <evan-ieNeDk6JonTYtjvyW6yDsg at public.gmane.org>

| http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dmqxr8w_24g9jf57kn
| 
| I've tried to incorporate many of the responses that I have (thankfully!)
| received.
| Any other comments are welcome, but it needs to be sent today.

Thanks again!

In Q9, you say:

    Some licenses (such as the GNU GPL) would require the Crown to publish
    as open source any work that it would cause to be created or modified.
    Other licenses, such as those used by Apache, Perl or BSD, would allow
    the Crown to keep its modifications private or proprietary.

You clarify this subsequently, but you should say right here that this
only applies if the crown distributes the modified work.

Possible wording.  A little awkward.

    Some licenses (such as the GNU GPL) would require the Crown, if it
    were to distribute a modified version of the software, to also
    offer the source code of that software under the orignal terms.
    Other licenses, such as those used by Apache, Perl or BSD, would
    allow the Crown to keep its modifications private or proprietary.

================

Do you know of useful writeups of other governments' experiences?  Are
references worth adding?

================

I'm not saying to add this; it is just what I thought of while reading
this again:

I think that "vendor lock in" is just a specific instance of control.
Other forms, off the top of my head:

- change is at the whim of the provider (including possibly "monopoly
  rent" charges).

  + a small change desired by the Crown might be expensive or refused

  + a bug fix desired by the Crown might be expensive or refused

  + a change might actually interfere with the Crown's use but not be
    optional

- diagnosing a problem with a system in which the work is a component
  might be made harder due to the work being a black box.

- redesigning deployment might require acquiring additional licenses.
  Each time licenses need to be acquired, the vendor may change the
  terms.

- upgrading a platform may require acquiring new licences

- transfering work to another entity (eg. outsourcing) might require
  acquiring new licenses

- ensuring licensing compliance turns out to be an onerous task in
  large organizations.  It can be intrusive, expensive, and
  disruptive.  Not doing it right leaves the organization open to
  serious liability.  For Open Source, this is generally easy.

All this could be considered vendor lock-in, but it isn't evident in
you explanation in the last paragraph of Q5.
--
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