131–140 of 151 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The GPL doesn't prevent large companies from selling software. Mobile phone vendors sell Linux based Android devices all the time and Linux is GPL.
Android is open source though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really.
Yes, really, anecdote of one. All the government projects I worked on, used SCM systems managed by government IT departments. Also zero contributions were made back from the FOSS stuff that were used in the project, they were kept in their IT SCM repositories.
In France this is exactly the goal of an association founded in 2002, see (in French) https://adullact.org/index.php/association
It seems they just focus on the cost while the real problem is of sovereignty, and need to include an European dimension. The US have been found spying on the whole world (including their own citizens), so it’s warranted Europeans push back against US hardware and software the same way it’s done with China (Huawei).
They don't neglect sovereignty, which is quite present in their communication (sample: https://adullact.org/21-espace-presse , https://adullact.org/65-actualite/agenda/854-colloque-sur-la... ).
My personal experience lets me suppose that the main challenge for the audience of this association is budget-related, and if so it is of paramount importance for it to (right off the bat) announce that free software reduces the TCO.
I'm more and more unconvinced by the present instance of the "Europe" thingie, and in any case an opensource project does not need gigantic bureaucratico-jacobinists organizations, in fact such ordeal will IMHO quickly derail it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whataboutism. There's a lot of non-militaristic software that could be FOSS.
That's a fair argument but it's definitely not "whataboutism" by any definition.
Since its taxpayers money, any custom made software for gov MUST be FOSS or we can equally abandon any logic whatsoever - citizens payed for it, gov employees were working with implementation team on shaping it, so it belongs to them. This doesn't have to be so for supportive domains such as databases but I would personally prefer that also (i.e. Postgresql instead Oracle db). There are many more reasons for this the…
This is not only true for software developed with public funds, but with any software that becomes critical for providing public services, communication in particular. Take for example the recent 5G spying debacle. US claims that the Chinese can insert snooping tech in their hardware, which is of course true. But the same thing is true for gear produced by American or European companies, so we are expected to choose…
You say that the minimum thing is source availability for auditing. Others will say that the freedom to modify the code running on your systems is the most important thing. Others will say that the freedom to copy the code into new contexts is the most important thing. Still others will say that the ability to run the code for free is the most important thing.
This makes it very difficult to navigate this topic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I love Postgres but it really does not do what Oracle does Right, Postgres doesn't have aggressive salespeople trying to convince key decisionmakers in your enterprise to switch away from Oracle.
It also doesn't have an IDE experience that matches SQLDeveloper, including for debugging stored procedures, doesn't do distributed transactions, integrate with OLAP, provide a Web based framework for quick CRUD applications, bare metal deployment where the RDMS is the OS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I love Postgres but it really does not do what Oracle does Right, Postgres doesn't have aggressive salespeople trying to convince key decisionmakers in your enterprise to switch away from Oracle.
It also doesn't have an IDE experience that matches SQLDeveloper, including for debugging stored procedures, doesn't do distributed transactions, integrate with OLAP, provide a Web based framework for quick CRUD applications, bare metal deployment where the RDMS is the OS.