[clug] Your Best arguments please

[Antony Wuth]

Gough, Chris (Chris.Gough at cit.act.edu.au) wrote:
> >> Michael.James at csiro.au wrote:
> > 1) Documented protocols and formats should be pushed for anywhere.
> >	Once the goal-posts are cemented in position,
> >	let OSS and proprietary duke it out, we will end up with a mix.
 
> What's to stop a vendor simulating closed formats with obscufication,
> creating a new "public" protocol for every tender (but keeping
> parser/generator code propietary). Should some kind of weight be given to
> the number of existing alternative software products (alternate vendor and
> OSS) that can verifieably read / write a given "public" format.

Require 3 separate / independent implementations of the protocol / data
format. You would need to have procedures to verify that the
implementation was actually independent (so MS doesn't just write 3
different .doc viewers & claim them as independent) On top of this there
probably should be the requirement that the end client is guaranteed
future access to at least one implementation of the protocol / file
format viewing / use code for the lifetime of the data stored / created
in the system (ie for potential FOI data 30 odd years) 

This would pretty much require at a minimum code escrow (potentially
expensive) or better still at least one of the implementations to be OSS
which means the end client could effectively implement their own code
escrow.

Antony.