|
New Zealand SSC Releases Revised Guidance on Open Source |
|
Sunday, May 14 2006 @ 11:19 PM EDT
|
This is very welcome news. You'll remember in March when New Zealand's State Services Commission posted a paper providing "guidance" to departments regarding Open Source. The paper,
prepared by a law firm that lists Microsoft as
a client, used such controversial terms as "infectious" when discussing the GPL. A revised document is now available, which has been improved markedly.
From their press release: The State Services Commission (SSC) today released an updated version of
their briefing paper, A Guide to Legal Issues in using Open Source Software.
Laurence Millar, Deputy Commissioner Information and Communications
Technologies, said the SSC received over 100 emails from the open source
community about the first version of the paper, and traffic to the
e-government website, www.e.govt.nz, saw a fivefold
increase in the days following its release.
"After we had reviewed the feedback, some of which was quite comprehensive,
we recognized the need to develop a new version that more accurately
represented SSC's position on open source," Mr Millar said.
"We believe the updated paper is an improvement and takes into account the
views we received. We would like to thank the New Zealand Open Source
Society for their assistance during the revision process. Their members
provided valuable feedback on the initial document.
"The whole process has led to an improved document and one that more
accurately reflects SSC's support for the use of open source in New Zealand
government," Mr Millar said. For one example of improvement, in the original paper, one segment read like this: "It is the infectiousness of open source licences that leads to many of these risks. Unfortunately it is not always clear-cut when any piece of open source software will be infectious. In addition, the practical significance of these risks for any particular piece of software will depend on the intended use of the software and whether anyone is likely to seek to enforce the terms of the open source licence... Managing open source software risks can be complicated." That segment is simply gone. Now it reads, "Software is generally considered to be 'open source' when it is made available in source code (i.e. human readable) form, under a licence that allows it to be modified and redistributed. Some open source licences are said to 'propagate'." It then goes on to describe how the GPL and LGPL work in a straightforward manner, essentially making sure departments use it appropriately. It is very commendable that the SCC made this effort to be more even-handed and more accurate, pointing out clearly that there are no restrictions on internal use and modification at all, for example (try doing that with Microsoft's code), and I thank them for listening to thoughtful and polite input and being willing to respond.
|
|
Authored by: mrcreosote on Sunday, May 14 2006 @ 11:37 PM EDT |
This thread has become an institution.
---
----------
mrcreosote[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: BC on Sunday, May 14 2006 @ 11:37 PM EDT |
If any are needed [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Corrections - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 14 2006 @ 11:46 PM EDT
- SCC -> SSC - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 15 2006 @ 08:13 AM EDT
|
Authored by: mrcreosote on Sunday, May 14 2006 @ 11:38 PM EDT |
If you post on-topic in the off-topic thread, is it off-off-topic?
---
----------
mrcreosote[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bigbert on Monday, May 15 2006 @ 12:28 AM EDT |
I am pleased. As a Kiwi-Penguin (if you get my drift!) I also sent emails to the
SCC and pointed out the obvious problems. The current document is fair and
reasonable.
---
LnxRlz![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 15 2006 @ 12:50 AM EDT |
It seems a quite sensible and comprehensive document. There is one problem
however, it is distributed under a license which prohibits commercial use
without permission. Seems to me that if I was an FOSS vendor and wanted to do
business with some portion of the New Zealand government, asking for permission
to distribute this information back to the New Zealand goverenment, or for that
matter to use it as part of a presentation to any prospective client or as a
model for an internal policy or in any other way, asking for permission would be
annoying at best. At worst it could be so burdensome that the pain outweighs
the gain.
I propose we all write and ask the NZ government to either:
a) Free the document for commercial use, in it's entirety including any
necessary disclamers.
or
b) At least allow commercial use by vendors in their course of business with the
NZ government.
Regards,
Karl O. Pinc kopnospamatmeme.com
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kh on Monday, May 15 2006 @ 01:22 AM EDT |
Although it is much better.
Features of Open Source
Licences
- 6 Software is generally considered to be "open source" when
it is made available in source code (i.e. human readable) form, under a licence
that allows it to be modified and redistributed.
and in
general copied and used without restriction
- 7 Some open
source licences are said to "propagate". This means that the original open
source licence must be applied when:
- 7.1 redistributing the original
open source code
- 7.2 distributing modifications of the original open source
code
- 7.3 distributing software that incorporates, or is derived from, the
original open source code.
Like proprietary
software the authors of many open source licenses retain ownership of the
software and have restrictions on how the software is redistributed but in
general not how it is copied or used.
- 8 Software
affected by a propagating licence is said to be "encumbered" by that licence.
But it is important to note that propagation generally has effect only on
distribution.
As opposed to most proprietary software
which usually has a license that allows no copying and distribution at
all.
- 9 As with many commercial software products, open
source software is generally provided "as is", without any:
- 9.1
warranties as to its fitness for a purpose, its performance, or the licensor's
title to the software
- 9.2 indemnities against third party claims of
intellectual property infringement.
I do like
point 9
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 15 2006 @ 07:19 AM EDT |
It should be noted that the New Zealand Open Source Society had a great deal to
do with reviewing the original document and meeting with the SSC to cooperate in
developing a revided document. In addition we also reviewed the new document
before release. It is certainly a much improved document, one we are very happy
with.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 16 2006 @ 08:20 AM EDT |
I wonder if they have a document, titled
"A Guide to Legal Issues in using Closed Source Software"
My feeling is that you run a *lot* more risk with those kind of licenses:
- What about the legal issues of software modifying your OS to implement some
sneaky DRM?
- What about accidentially invalidating a license by just installing some
software on another machine?
- What about clauses, that allow vendors through their update mechanism to
basically change everything on your machine that they like, including making
some other software unusable?
Seems to me there are a lot more risks in the typical Closed Source license,
than in GPL & Co.
TToni[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 16 2006 @ 09:30 AM EDT |
Free Software is *meant* to be infectious. Ask RMS. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|