One other detail to think about. Are you intending to use this code for internal use only? If so, then why should anyone care how you get your code? I work for a large defense contractor as well, and no one seems to mind as long as I get the job done and actually have all the source. (although perhaps mine is a case of "It's easier to ask forgiveness than get permission." ;)
If you are using it for a deliverable product, then it will ultimately come down to the attitude of the people who make these decisions. Rather than looking for a way to accomplish something, they will often look for all the reasons it CAN'T be accomplished. Too often, the mentality at large defense contractors is to 'er on the side of caution' - usually to the point of paranoia. And heaven forbid you should ever want to do something different than the way it was done before! (I could go on) Anyway, good luck in your effort! John Howard Test Engineer "A Large Defense Contractor" >>> Jim Kring 04/14/04 08:11PM >>> > You get what you pay for; if it's cheap or free it's crap. And some opinions fit into that category too, but it is best not to generalize ;-) One should always perform an evaluation of the tools (and advice) they are going to use, prior to using them. If they meet your standards and requirements then go for it. If not, you can always throw money at your problems (and pay someone to invent you a wheel). Largely, the price you pay for Open Source software is the time that it takes you to evaluate, learn how to use, and participate in the development of the software -- in that respect Open Source software is not free. But if you don't pay that price, then... (sometimes) you get what you pay for. Regards, -Jim PS - Have you read your NI Software License Agreement lately? Is your application authorized and will it be authorized tomorrow? OK, gotta run... I hear the helicopters circling :-)) Craig Graham wrote: >Swinarsky, DJ Derrick (5453) @ IS wrote: > > >>Just curious if anyone has any tips on convincing the corporate types >>that using software developed by the opensource community is a GOOD >>thing. I would love to be allowed to use all the OpenG tools and >>think that many in my group would also benefit from them. Also would >>like to use some of the labXML code developed on sourceforge. >> >>Problem is that I work for a big defense contractor that is not too >>keen about the idea of opensource. Have some paranoid individuals >>somewhere in the chain that think code developed on sourceforge is >>not reliable and shouldn't be trusted. Also have heard that in order >>for anyone in the company to use software downloaded from the >>internet the company has to have an agreement with the providing >>entity (company usually). >> >>Any help in this matter would be GREATLY appreciated!!! >> >> > ><rant> >I went down the same path about a year ago and gave up. Problems I >encountered (and still do in different contexts); > >1) You get what you pay for; if it's cheap or free it's crap. >2) If it wasn't written in-house, it's crap. >3) If the license doesn't state in one line of words of one syllable that >there are no copyright, royalty or any other IP issues with the code no >matter how you use it, it's crap. > >I disagree with all three points, but that's what I came up against and I've >given up on it. With regards to point 3, I got quite an involved email from >Jim Kring explaining what we could and could not do with OpenG. Didn't help- >the response was that an email isn't legally binding. In another instance, >Albert Geven offered to let me use some pretty useful code he'd done for >saving and loading panel settings in a way that was resistant to datatype >changes, control addition/removal etc. The conditions that were imposed on >using that were unreasonable- I was expected to ask Albert to sign a waiver >that no IP rights would be exercised on the code and fax it back to us so we >could use the code he'd given me as a favour. I didn't see why he should >have to mess about like that so I didn't do it. When someone sends you code >in an email with permission to do with it as you please, it's a bit off to >then start asking them to jump through hoops so they can help you out! > >Even though you have the source and so the included open-source stuff can be >audited (and maintained) just as well as the in-house stuff, I wouldn't hold >out hope on persuading the decision makers at your end. > ><\rant> > > >
