Open source battles Microsoft in Ukraine

NewsForge.com ^ | Jun. 27, 2005 | Andrij Zinchenko

[N3WBI3]

OSS PING

If you are interested in a new OSS ping list please mail me

[AnnAdoringFan]

I'm curious what people here think of the Open Source debate...

[N3WBI3]

I for one like open source but I am by no means dislike or am against closed source. Everyone has a right to do with their IP as they wish; if that means keeping the source code locked up so be it, if it means putting the code under GPL/BSD also good.

You'll find fanatics on both side, people who swear OSS is the only way to go and people who swear the GPL is communism (never mind the fact the GPL uphold the owners right to know how you have used their IP).

Open source software tends push closed source, it offers competition where none might elsewhere exist. MS is finally after years refocusing on ie, after years of letting it sit due to lack of competition. MS is doing this because of, in no small part, firefox.

[kevkrom]

Personally... I think any large organization or government needs to demand the source code to almost any system they buy or otherwise use. Whether that's open source via GPL or BSD style licences, or licensed from a proprietary vendor, the organization needs to have access to the source code itself so that it can customize the software to their own needs, and/or continue to maintain the product after it is no longer supported by the vendor/developer.

[Bush2000]

When governments give preference to one side or another, they're gaming the market. Ultimately, this leads to less choice.

[Bush2000]

And what about IP ownership and trade secrets? Does that fly out the window because you want the source code?

[N3WBI3]

Depends, Government agencies all the time set standards for sub agencies. Does the fact the USACE desktop requirements state Windows reduce consumer choice?

[N3WBI3]

I think any large organization or government needs to demand the source code to almost any system they buy or otherwise use.

Sure demand it, but I dont think companies should be required to give it up. If you want to keep the source closed its an IP owners right. If open source means so much to your org, then go and find someone who will release the source.

[N3WBI3]

Depends on who you ask. On one hand you have this guy, who constantly creates threads like this (at least 3 today already) and maintains a ping list to push it on everyone constantly.

Push it on people? do you have any proof that people on this list did not specifically ask to be here? some of us like open source software, I put a ping list up so that OSS issues might not turn almost every tech ping into a flame war with the anti-oss jihadist making bulk commie claims.. I have many times said there si room for all software licenses, open (gpl, bsd, ...), and closed..

[Golden Eagle]

You created at least 3 new threads this morning alone, when most people are concerned about what's going on in China or Iraq due to current events. Yes, that is pushing it on people, amazingly similar to the DNC and their attempts at passing laws that require it.

[N3WBI3]

Three threads pinged only to people who have asked me to do so..

[Golden Eagle]

Could I please get an explanation of what was wrong with post #10? I was simply linking several legitimate sources that indicate open source software is the official operating system of communist governments and the DNC.

[N3WBI3]

GE:"when most people are concerned about what's going on in China or Iraq due to current events."

While there is no doubt China and Iraq interest many people here lets see the first ten articles the pop up when I hit reload..

---

Muslim Girls Allegedly Harassed at (Delaware) School (Mother Files Suit)

Summer of The Shark Part II (New Shark Attack In Florida An Hour Ago)

July 5th Protest Rally in New London,CT to support Kelo plaintiffs

KLEIN'S "TRUTH" IS SIMPLY SORDID (LATimes writer urges black-out on 'Truth about Hillary' book)

Republicans Suggest Backlash Against Baseball If Soros Group Wins Bid To Buy Nationals

Paparazzi ranks swell as demand for celeb photos grows

The Young and the Ripped-off

Bush's demons reveal a tougher edge in Iran (Bush responsible for “election” of hardliners)

Hillary vs. Jeanine?

Beleaguered Salamanders Now Plagued by Deformities

---

Yea I see how my three post really go against the laser focus FReepers have on the issues *you* think they should be talking about...

[kevkrom]

And what about IP ownership and trade secrets? Does that fly out the window because you want the source code?

IP ownership can be maintained by using an appropriate license, as can non-disclosure on trade secrets. If I were managing an IT department, I would not want to make a major investment in any software where I couldn't view or modify the source code; whether that's one of the "free" licenses, or a deal with a proprietary vendor is irrelevant. As the purchaser, that's my choice, and I have every right to make it -- vendors of proprietary systems that don't cooperate simply won't sell any units to me.

[Tribune7]

Welcome back :-)

[Golden Eagle]

Thanks. I'm only attempting to discuss the political ramifications, this being a political site. Hopefully it will be allowed.

[Bush2000]

Depends, Government agencies all the time set standards for sub agencies.

They don't force contractors into divulging trade secrets.

[Bush2000]

IP ownership can be maintained by using an appropriate license, as can non-disclosure on trade secrets.

You've gotta be kidding, man. A trade secret is no longer a trade secret when you reveal it. It's like Coca-Cola handing out its formula for Coke. It has the weakest form of protection under IP law. Once it's known, there's no putting the genie back in the bottle; hence, the reason that courts generally don't force companies to reveal their trade secrets.

If I were managing an IT department, I would not want to make a major investment in any software where I couldn't view or modify the source code; whether that's one of the "free" licenses, or a deal with a proprietary vendor is irrelevant.

Right, because you're an open source advocate -- and that's your right. But government shouldn't be giving preference to open source software. That will serve only one purpose: It will artificially suppress the market for commercial software.

As the purchaser, that's my choice, and I have every right to make it -- vendors of proprietary systems that don't cooperate simply won't sell any units to me.

Of course it's your choice. But the point of this article isn't individual choice -- but government fiat.