[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Fsfe-uk] OSS Pol.v2 redraft response redraft
From: |
Lee Braiden |
Subject: |
Re: [Fsfe-uk] OSS Pol.v2 redraft response redraft |
Date: |
Tue, 14 Sep 2004 19:38:39 +0100 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.7 |
Hi Alex,
Sorry to come up with these so late. I should have taken more time on this
before :(
Hopefully you guys will disagree and think these points aren't a problem :)
Either way, they're not huge fixes :)
On Tuesday 14 Sep 2004 18:18, Alex Hudson wrote:
> http://www.affs.org.uk/~alex/OSSPolicyV2Response contains the latest
> attempt I've made to write a response to the OSS policy redraft. It
> addresses all the points that were raised to me on and offlist, and I
> would appreciate any other feedback you might have - we need to send it
> back by Friday ;)
Small typo: the last paragraph, just before the bullet points, reads: "both of
which mistake are repeated in this draft policy".
Apart from that, one other small grammatical thing from the response:
> The cost equation is very different for free software, and while it is
admirable that the Government should look for the best value solution, free
software solutions must not be compared to proprietary using unfair cost
evaluations.
Would it not be wise to build on the fact that free software is often cheap by
mentioning other features *as well*? The above may read as if we've just
discovered that proprietary software is cheaper, and we're moving the goal
posts, rather than enlarging the pitch ;)
Also: to me, the other evaluation points besides value for money are a little
lost in the text. Could/should they be emphasised a little more, so that
they aren't missed/forgotten by the end of the thing? I'm not sure how
practical this suggestion is; whether it's possible to do without messing up
the flow etc. It's just a small worry of mine :)
Again, I would like to see the ethical side of things emphasised more. It
would be nice to see our government policy actually require JUSTIFICATION
when projects choose NOT to use free software -- an explanation of how the
considerations such as ethics and openness etc. are outweighed by other
factors offered by proprietary solutions. It seems to me like that this
do-it-or-justify-it approach would be the logical one, if indeed their
default mode (not to mention the directives of eEurope's) is to promote the
use of free software. But maybe that would be pushing our luck? ;)
Anyway... just some thoughts, Alex. Thanks for your hard work on this :)
--
Lee Braiden