Hi Dean,
On 9/22/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Rage,
On 9/22/06, Rage Callao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Dean,
>
> On 9/22/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well, then make certain "standards" regarding the contents of the
> > softare licenses and not the type of license the software comes in. It
> > shouldn't matter that it's a FOSS license which the OSI determines, or
> > a license that simply allows the government to use the software and
> > modify it so long as the government doesn't transfer the
> > redistribution rights to the third party developers who will modify it
> > in the future.
>
> Are you saying its ok for the government to mandate that source code
> be made available to the government when it purchases software as long
> as government doesn't allow subsequent developers who will have access
> to the code the right to use it for anything else other than the
> original purpose for which it had been acquired?
>
What I'm saying is that it's alright for government to say that "for
all further ICT projects wherein software will have to be
procured/acquired, that the software be licensed such that the license
allows the Philippine government to get a copy of the source code,
have rights to use the source code and resulting compiled binaries (if
any) indefinitely across all government owned and controlled agencies
and departments, and be able to modify the source code either through
its ICT agencies/departments or by a third party.".
If the license disallows third party developers contracted by
government from using the source code to the software product outside
of the purposes of government use (i.e. covered by an NDA, or MOA,
binding the third party developer to legal contract to promise to not
use the source code for private purposes), then I don't care -- just
as long as the above three conditions hold. If the license also
requires that you send a post-card to the author for every
installation of the software, it shouldn't matter. I just want
government to have the rights to the code, be able to modify the code
by itself or through third party contractors to suit its purposes, and
be able to use the software forever. Of course, this should be after
the fact that the software is deemed to fulfill technical functional
and non-functional requirements of government. FOSS licenses will also
qualify under these stipulations, and so will other non-FOSS licenses
that include the above mentioned three stipulations.
Correct me if I'm wrong but we do seem to agree on some points here such as:
1. That government should only acquire software wherein it has access
to the source code.
2. That government should be free to modify the code by itself or
through third party developers to suit its purposes.
3. That government should be able to use the software indefinitely.
4. That government should only acquire software that fulfills its requirements.
5. That government can adopt standards on what it deems acceptable
licenses when it purchases software.
So supposing that under this bill, a software provider were to satisfy
all these requirements in their licensing terms, are they already
qualified to bid for government projects?
If they were to include in their licensing terms that the government
must indemnify them for, say, loss of income resulting from the use of
a third party of their source code for projects outside of government
where the government had not sufficiently taken measures (like NDAs,
MOAs) to protect that source code from such misuse, would that
licensing term also qualify for the bid?
What if the terms also included that government should only use, for
instance, the software provider's development tools to modify the
software, will that qualify as well?
Please clarify.
Friendly,
Rage
_________________________________________________
Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List
plug@lists.linux.org.ph (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph)
Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists
Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
