[clug] Your Best arguments please
mbp at samba.org
Wed Aug 13 14:15:48 EST 2003
On 11 Aug 2003, Michael.James at csiro.au wrote:
> Chatting with Kim Holburn, it seemed to us that there were 4 levels.
> 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.
> 2) Further where a government agency is interacting with the public
> a) Readers/viewers must be generally (and freely) available.
> b) For FOI archiving, the format must be documented. (see 1)
> ie: No word DOCs on government websites.
There is room for a bit of slack here between having public formats
and having freely available software -- there might be no FooDoc
reader for Atheos, but if the format is documented or there is an open
implementation somewhere I think it's OK to let it slide.
> 3) Where there is a question of trusting code,
> as in Defence and other Govt agencies,
> that code must be available to the client for audit.
> Could be secret, but the OSS assurance-of-many-eyes is still valuable.
> 4) And where public trust is required, (as in a voting system)
> the code MUST be publicly available.
> ie: if the public is the client the public must have access.
> There is a case to be made here for mandatory OSS.
That sounds ideal to me.
More information about the linux