[clug] Your Best arguments please
mbp at samba.org
Wed Aug 13 14:18:19 EST 2003
On 11 Aug 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.
> Lipservice to published protocols was a problem in the web browser wars.
> Should we require validating protocols?
> 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.
A tender response will probably have to make arguments on a number of
subjective/qualitative points like this.
It's not so much whether the proprietary tender can stretch the truth
to claim it's "open". It's more about whether the open tender can
convincingly explain why it's more open and have that seen as a
More information about the linux