> > > > 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 :-) Chris
-- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
