[clug] Your Best arguments please

Antony Wuth ajw at pobox.com
Mon Aug 11 13:37:26 EST 2003

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


More information about the linux mailing list