On 2003.06.30 14:19 Tim Churches wrote:
On Tue, 2003-07-01 at 05:58, Richard Schilling wrote:

Richard,

Two related questions (I'm not interested in participating, I'm just
curious):
1) In what sense is this project "Open Source". Certainly the platform
and toolset specified is as closed source as you can get: wall-to-wall
Microsoft. Not entirely surprising given that Microsoft are
headquartered in Washington State, aren't they?

We would propose that any work we do be open sourced as part of the project (although we'd be open to the customer's needs). Especially because we'd bring existing Open Source code into the project. If they refuse on that basis, then so be it, but I think the climate is right because everyone's trying to preserve cash right now. Maintaining a closed system costs about 3X that of an open system, so the incentive is there.


2) Has Washington State Department of Social and Heath [sic] Services
given **any** indication that the results of this project are to be
open
sourced, or is that just your wishful thinking? In most contracted
work
like this, the contracting agency (i.e. Washington State Dept of
whatever) owns all the code which is written - so unless they make a
conscious decision to open source the results, this is not an open
source project.

They haven't indicated either way.



One observation: 1) It is a good idea to get the name of the contracting agency correct when sending out such calls for expressions of interest.


That one slipped passed my eyes and spellcheck, a phenomena that invariably happens to me on the most important messages.



Richard Schilling




Reply via email to