[ubuntu-uk] Open Source Procurement Toolkit

[alan c]

On 19/11/11 20:33, Chris Rowson wrote:
>>
>>
>> > The 'All About Open Source' document is particularly interesting
>> > because it explains why UK.gov can't mandate Open Source software.
>> > It's not entirely straight forward; I'm not entirely sure, but I
>> > think it means to say that UK.gov considers 'Open Source' a product
>> > (perhaps like Microsoft) rather than a feature and so that mandating
>> > a specific product is a breach on antitrust law? Thoughts?
>>
>> Well, it makes perfect sense. Why would mandating proprietary software
>> be bad but mandating open source sofftware be alright? The issue in
>> question, surely, is the quality of the software to do what it's
>> intended to do, not just what license it's provided under. Sure, the
>> license is part of the definition of how good the software is at its
>> job, but it's not the totality of it.
>>
>>
> Sure, it would be daft to mandate open source software in every situation.
> I'm not suggesting otherwise.
> 
> The bit that jumped out at me personally was the legal definition of open
> source as a product rather than a feature. I wondered if this might make it
> difficult to specify open source as a requirement in a tender (because it
> seems that as far as the legal definition in the UK goes, you're then
> specifying a product)?
> 
> I did wonder if anyone on the list had responded to the Cabinet Office
> consultation :-)

I attended  (and wife) in London and took part. I specifically made
the point there, that it is open standards which *can* be set by
Government, like any other standards the Gov chooses to set, whereas
open source, or the actual products,  is/are private to the project,
or the contractor's choice whatever. It is very difficult on a large
scale to specify in detail which (product) shall be used, or say the
internals of the product. If you do this then you will certainly see
problems from competitors who will make the case they can achieve the
same result at half the price, (probably in court), using a different
method. And if, having specified an actual product or too much
'product' detail, you subsequently find that something goes wrong and
the overall objective cannot be achieved, then you have probably
signed a blank cheque.

I spent some years in a large Utility company specifying automatic etc
control systems which included helping to defend a £3 million dispute.
-- 
alan cocks
Ubuntu user