Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on July 29, 2003 03:01 AM
"demanding open source reveals your IP to everyone, many companies spend
millions developing there IP so they can gain competitive edge, why should
they turn over there hard paid for work to the world for free"
I work in an industry that produces software (and the devices that run the software) for the Department of Defense. The government owns that software, they paid for its development, they paid us to come up with the innovations to meet the requirements they set. We deliver the source and the build instructions. They have representatives to be instructed in how the software works, attend code reviews and change boards, witness quality assurance tests. They COULD do a "performance spec" like the glue example, and get a closed-source product that meets their needs. However, DoD has to defend against the possibility (usually a 100% certainty) that they will have to get someone else to maintain the software in the future.
These are the key points to why government SHOULD use open-source: They know what it REALLY does, and they can get someone else to maintain it. If it is the right strategy for DoD, why not GSA or the rest of the bureaucracy? And why pay someone to develop software in order to obtain these assurances when the development has already been done in public?
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:what a ridiculous story
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 29, 2003 03:01 AMmillions developing there IP so they can gain competitive edge, why should
they turn over there hard paid for work to the world for free"
I work in an industry that produces software (and the devices that run the
software) for the Department of Defense. The government owns that software,
they paid for its development, they paid us to come up with the innovations
to meet the requirements they set. We deliver the source and the build
instructions. They have representatives to be instructed in how the
software works, attend code reviews and change boards, witness quality
assurance tests. They COULD do a "performance spec" like the glue example,
and get a closed-source product that meets their needs. However, DoD has
to defend against the possibility (usually a 100% certainty) that they will
have to get someone else to maintain the software in the future.
These are the key points to why government SHOULD use open-source: They
know what it REALLY does, and they can get someone else to maintain it.
If it is the right strategy for DoD, why not GSA or the rest of the
bureaucracy? And why pay someone to develop software in order to obtain
these assurances when the development has already been done in public?
#