Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Re: Fwd: Re: A few here may have an opinion on this
Sounds right to me. Software funded by tax dollars should
be open to everyone, whether they want to use it commercially
or not. (01)
There are services that resell lists of government auctions
for example. They can even republish the information given
away in government pamphlets. Even though the information
is freely available, they promote it and distribute it. The fact
that they make a profit in the process in no way detracts from
the fact that they are providing a real service. By dint of
marketing and fulfillment, they bring government-provided
resources together with people who need it. (02)
Jack Park wrote: (03)
> >From: "Benjamin J. Tilly " <email@example.com>
> >Brian Behlendorf <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Benjamin J. Tilly wrote:
> > > > http://newsvac.newsforge.com/newsvac/02/10/23/1247236.shtml?tid=4
> > > >
> > > > A Washington State senator is trying to make it government
> > > > policy to not support research that produces GPLed
> > > > software because the GPL is a license that "would prevent
> > > > or discourage commercial adoption" of technologies.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, right.
> > >
> > > Everyone knows my biases, but I think there's a pretty reasonable point
> > > here. A "university" license would, in my opinion, be the most
> > > appropriate license for government-funded software to be released under.
> > > Simply by virtue of being compatible with all other existing licenses,
> > > Open Source or not, it makes the software more widely usable, and thus
> > > more valuable to society as a whole. Since a properly-formed university
> > > license is compatible with the GPL, it would also not prevent government
> > > funds from going to funds that are based on GPL software, for example the
> > > Linux kernel. If I were a senator I'd be tempted to sign onto such
> > > legislation. I'd look very closely, though, for any easter eggs left by
> > > software vendors from Washington State.
> >This movement is specifically aimed at keeping the
> >government from distributing things like its security
> >enhancements for the Linux kernel. There are two issues
> > 1) If the government wants to use open source
> > software, and that software does not meet the
> > government's needs, then it is reasonable for the
> > government to improve that software.
> > 2) Governments are better suited than private
> > enterprise to address the tragedy of the commons.
> > Security in particular suffers from this, and
> > actions meant to improve computer security should
> > address popular software, regardless of license.
> >Both of these are legitimate public policy concerns which
> >make it appropriate for the government to do security
> >work on open source projects like Linux and Apache.
> >Microsoft doesn't want the government to do this work for
> >the obvious reason that it legitimizes competition to
> >Microsoft, and does it in an area where they are weak.
> >As far as I am concerned, that is Microsoft's problem.
> >When Microsoft sells to the government, they undoubtably
> >are paid money for a contract that is contingent upon
> >certain features being developed. And the government
> >spends money giving private companies - Microsoft
> >included - feedback on security issues. Why are these
> >actions OK when a purely private interest (such as
> >Microsoft) is the direct recipient of the public
> >largess, but not when it is an open source community?
> >Download the FREE Opera browser at www.opera.com/download/
> >Free OperaMail at http://www.operamail.com/
> >Powered by Outblaze
> XML Topic Maps: Creating and Using Topic Maps for the Web.
> Addison-Wesley, ISBN 0-201-74960-2.
> http://www.nexist.org/wiki/User0Blog (04)