Chris Rowson wrote:
> > I can also understand a general unwillingness to disconnect software
> > from the license under which it is made available; I don't see
> > what's gained from splitting them. Why would you wish to be able to
> > ban non-Open source products from tendering?
> >
> You wouldn't
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 9:57 PM, Alan Bell wrote:
> On 19/11/11 20:33, Chris Rowson wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I did wonder if anyone on the list had responded to the Cabinet Office
>> consultation :-)
>>
>>
>>
>> I am kind of involved in the process (funny how Ubuntu ended up on the
> list isn't it? . .
On 19/11/11 20:33, Chris Rowson wrote:
I did wonder if anyone on the list had responded to the Cabinet Office
consultation :-)
I am kind of involved in the process (funny how Ubuntu ended up on the
list isn't it? . . .)
It is hugely political, and a bit "Yes Minister"ish but yeah there
On Sat, 2011-11-19 at 21:37 +, alan c wrote:
> On 19/11/11 20:40, Juan J. MartÃnez wrote:
> > I don't know the details about UK gov, but in Spain the government pays
> > an absurd amount of money just for the licenses, and then pays for
> > support... frequently from a third party (probably the
On 19/11/11 20:40, Juan J. MartÃnez wrote:
> I don't know the details about UK gov, but in Spain the government pays
> an absurd amount of money just for the licenses, and then pays for
> support... frequently from a third party (probably the vendor providing
> the hardware, with a partnership with
On 19/11/11 21:03, Avi Greenbury wrote:
> Chris Rowson wrote:
>
>> The bit that jumped out at me personally was the legal definition of
>> open source as a product rather than a feature. I wondered if this
>> might make it difficult to specify open source as a requirement in a
>> tender (because i
>
>
> I can also understand a general unwillingness to disconnect software
> from the license under which it is made available; I don't see what's
> gained from splitting them. Why would you wish to be able to ban
> non-Open source products from tendering?
>
>
>
You wouldn't want to ban non-open so
On 19/11/11 20:33, Chris Rowson wrote:
>>
>>
>> > The 'All About Open Source' document is particularly interesting
>> > because it explains why UK.gov can't mandate Open Source software.
>> > It's not entirely straight forward; I'm not entirely sure, but I
>> > think it means to say that UK.gov con
Chris Rowson wrote:
> The bit that jumped out at me personally was the legal definition of
> open source as a product rather than a feature. I wondered if this
> might make it difficult to specify open source as a requirement in a
> tender (because it seems that as far as the legal definition in t
On 19/11/11 20:24, Barry Drake wrote:
> On 19/11/11 14:45, Chris Rowson wrote:
>> I thought some of you might be interested in this recent guidance
>> released by the Cabinet Office on Open Source Software:
> I'm quite excited by this. I had already contacted my MP, MEP, local
> councillor and C
On Sat, 2011-11-19 at 20:09 +, Avi Greenbury wrote:
> Chris Rowson wrote:
>
> > The 'All About Open Source' document is particularly interesting
> > because it explains why UK.gov can't mandate Open Source software.
> > It's not entirely straight forward; I'm not entirely sure, but I
> > think
>
>
> > The 'All About Open Source' document is particularly interesting
> > because it explains why UK.gov can't mandate Open Source software.
> > It's not entirely straight forward; I'm not entirely sure, but I
> > think it means to say that UK.gov considers 'Open Source' a product
> > (perhaps l
On 19/11/11 14:45, Chris Rowson wrote:
I thought some of you might be interested in this recent guidance
released by the Cabinet Office on Open Source Software:
I'm quite excited by this. I had already contacted my MP, MEP, local
councillor and County Councillor about Open Standards. Now I've
Chris Rowson wrote:
> The 'All About Open Source' document is particularly interesting
> because it explains why UK.gov can't mandate Open Source software.
> It's not entirely straight forward; I'm not entirely sure, but I
> think it means to say that UK.gov considers 'Open Source' a product
> (pe
On 19/11/11 14:45, Chris Rowson wrote:
> I thought some of you might be interested in this recent guidance released
> by the Cabinet Office on Open Source Software:
>
> http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/resource-library/open-source-procurement-toolkit
>
> It's publicly accessible so you don't need
I thought some of you might be interested in this recent guidance released
by the Cabinet Office on Open Source Software:
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/resource-library/open-source-procurement-toolkit
It's publicly accessible so you don't need a .gov.uk address to get access,
and it might be he
16 matches
Mail list logo
