[Linux-aus] Fwd: FYI & Comment - Latest version of Democrat Open Source Bill

[Arjen Lentz]

Hi Leon,

On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 00:39, Leon Brooks wrote:
> From: "Johnstone, Andy"
> 
> [...]
> We have taken on board suggestions about the definition of open source
> software and included reference to open standards.

I wonder if it may be possible to get the term "open source" completely
removed, and purely go for terms like:
 - "open standards" (already noted in the amendment)
 - "open file formats" (specific mention)
 - "future-proof investment" (in many years time, can the customer still
access today's documents, or will buying this software now create a
problem later?)
 - "security audited by independent third parties"
 - "prevent vendor lock-in"
... things like that.

Con can probably provide much nicer terminology/phrasing (go for it
Con!), but I'm sure you get the idea.

What matters: the desired characteristics of the end result, not any
particular form of software development that generally delivers on that.
Because, there are many different kinds of open source software, and not
all do/can currently deliver all of the abovementioned (and other)
features. Similarly, some closed-source products may actually be able to
deliver.
I think that basically, using the term "open source" focuses on the
wrong thing. By noting the specific features that people should look
for, the issue is made much clearer (and actually easier to sell).


Regards,
Arjen.
-- 
Arjen Lentz, Technical Writer, Trainer
Brisbane, QLD Australia
MySQL AB, www.mysql.com

Brisbane 3 November (5 days): Using & Managing MySQL Training
Training,Support,Licenses,T-shirts @ https://order.mysql.com/?marl