I thought some of you might be interested in this recent guidance released
by the Cabinet Office on Open Source Software:
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/resource-library/open-source-procurement-toolkit
It's publicly accessible so you don't need a .gov.uk address to get access,
and it might be
On 19/11/11 14:45, Chris Rowson wrote:
I thought some of you might be interested in this recent guidance released
by the Cabinet Office on Open Source Software:
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/resource-library/open-source-procurement-toolkit
It's publicly accessible so you don't need a
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
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
On 19/11/11 20:24, Barry Drake wrote:
On 19/11/11 14:45, Chris Rowson wrote:
I thought some of you might be interested in this recent guidance
released by the Cabinet Office on Open Source Software:
I'm quite excited by this. I had already contacted my MP, MEP, local
councillor and County
Chris Rowson wrote:
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
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
I can also understand a general unwillingness to disconnect software
from the license under which it is made available; I don't see what's
gained from splitting them. Why would you wish to be able to ban
non-Open source products from tendering?
You wouldn't want to ban non-open source
On 19/11/11 21:03, Avi Greenbury wrote:
Chris Rowson wrote:
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
On 19/11/11 20:40, Juan J. MartÃnez wrote:
I don't know the details about UK gov, but in Spain the government pays
an absurd amount of money just for the licenses, and then pays for
support... frequently from a third party (probably the vendor providing
the hardware, with a partnership with
On Sat, 2011-11-19 at 21:37 +, alan c wrote:
On 19/11/11 20:40, Juan J. MartÃnez wrote:
I don't know the details about UK gov, but in Spain the government pays
an absurd amount of money just for the licenses, and then pays for
support... frequently from a third party (probably the
On 19/11/11 20:33, Chris Rowson wrote:
I did wonder if anyone on the list had responded to the Cabinet Office
consultation :-)
I am kind of involved in the process (funny how Ubuntu ended up on the
list isn't it? . . .)
It is hugely political, and a bit Yes Ministerish but yeah there
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 9:57 PM, Alan Bell alan.b...@libertus.co.uk wrote:
On 19/11/11 20:33, Chris Rowson wrote:
I did wonder if anyone on the list had responded to the Cabinet Office
consultation :-)
I am kind of involved in the process (funny how Ubuntu ended up on the
list isn't
Chris Rowson wrote:
I can also understand a general unwillingness to disconnect software
from the license under which it is made available; I don't see
what's gained from splitting them. Why would you wish to be able to
ban non-Open source products from tendering?
You wouldn't want to
14 matches
Mail list logo
