[clug] Your Best arguments please

Martin Pool 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 mailing list