Subject: Re: Software as a public service
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 15:44:42 +0900

>>>>> "Alan" == Alan Hudson <giles@yumetech.com> writes:

    Alan> Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

    >> Well, the hypothesis is that the FOI Act is applicable.  My
    >> concern is that even that might not be much help for the
    >> purpose of leveraging government-funded software into the open
    >> source sector.

    Alan> Or do you think the FOI Act could be used to give access to
    Alan> reuse?

I have no idea ... I rather think not.  I just noted that several
posters seem to hope that it would be true, and pointed out that FOI
could specify umask 0333 ;-) AFAIK.

    Alan> We've been working with our Navy contracts to basically
    Alan> allow duel licensing.  The code becomes one of several open
    Alan> source licenses, but we retain copyright.  In theory this
    Alan> would allow use to make further improvements that would not
    Alan> have to be returned to the original client.  Ie the
    Alan> government/public get free usage of what was developed on
    Alan> their dime, but if we add further improvements later then we
    Alan> decide how its used.

This is a _real_ concern to me.  More power to you for specifying a
free licence, of course.  But I really don't see any incentive for
"govt. free use" to translate to "public free use".  That's not your
fault, and not your job to fix.  The FLOSS community needs to think
about how to address it, though.


-- 
School of Systems and Information Engineering http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
               Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.