71–80 of 153 posts
For those that know more about OpenBSD than the EU (and I salute you for it), the EU parliament is a fairly powerless institution. Eurocrats show it little respect; one described it as "just one big fucking NGO". Update after reading it: this isn't even an official parliament document or recommendation. It's something by the parliament's research service.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They don't address conflicts of interest but it seems like they're fine with privacy: "[...] the use of open source computer operating systems and applications reduces the risk of privacy intrusion by mass surveillance. They seem to be touting that as a benefit, not a drawback.
When the same governments are funding signals intelligence gathering with one hand and open source software development with the other, there is potential conflict of interest, if not actual conflict. The NSA's role in weakening open source encryption standards was the result of the internal logic by which all intelligence organs typically operate irrespective of sponsoring state. The differences between the politics…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another free license solves only a small proportion of this problem. True, but with BSD I'm not sure you can view it as a problem to begin with since the license is explicitly designed to legally absolve the user of all obligation to do just that. If you desire monetary contributions be made, some kind of commercial license is the solution. If you desire modifications be contributed back, there are other licenses tha…
There are things in this world that are not a business.
For those that know more about OpenBSD than the EU (and I salute you for it), the EU parliament is a fairly powerless institution. Eurocrats show it little respect; one described it as "just one big fucking NGO". Update after reading it: this isn't even an official parliament document or recommendation. It's something by the parliament's research service.
EP is a high reputation organization and has force within the EU structure. Calling an EPRS study "something by the parliament's research service" is not only redundant (EPRS = European Parliament Research Service) but also short-sighted (do you do the same thing to the deliverables by your R&D department?).
So, this is an EP study that you can cite in order to support your arguments for switching to free software in your government / school / workplace / home / hobby group.
For those that know more about OpenBSD than the EU (and I salute you for it), the EU parliament is a fairly powerless institution. Eurocrats show it little respect; one described it as "just one big fucking NGO". Update after reading it: this isn't even an official parliament document or recommendation. It's something by the parliament's research service.
Politicians in EU and US call various institutions a "NGO" when they disagree with it and want to ridicule it to intentionally reduce its public reputation. EP is a high reputation organization and has force within the EU structure. Calling an EPRS study "something by the parliament's research service" is not only redundant (EPRS = European Parliament Research Service) but also short-sighted (do you do the same thing…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More often than not, he wasn't referring to contributions in the FSF sense (i.e. people modifying code that they don't send back to the original authors). He simply meant that many of the institutions that run and use OpenBSD, which is available entirely for free, don't give anything in return - be it in the form of code, money, documentation or promotion. Another free license solves only a small proportion of this p…
Another free license solves only a small proportion of this problem. True, but with BSD I'm not sure you can view it as a problem to begin with since the license is explicitly designed to legally absolve the user of all obligation to do just that. If you desire monetary contributions be made, some kind of commercial license is the solution. If you desire modifications be contributed back, there are other licenses tha…
First of all, by contributing, you show a mutual interest in the increased quality of the solution. This in turn will motivate the maintainers to better understand the business concerns of the new contributor.
By contributing, the contributor will gain insights in the workings of the solution, thus increasing the quality of the product itself. (As an analogy: by taking apart an amplifier, you increase your understanding of the way the product satisfies your needs).
Last but not least, contributing generates good-will, subsequently increasing the probability of adequate answers to support questions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just curious, is that software developed by consultants or by actual EU employees?
Consultants essentially. There's also some IT development going on by actual EU employees, but the projects I listed above are usually won through tenders often submitted as a joint project by multiple companies/organisations (research partners - i.e. universities -, development partners - i.e. big companies - + public partners - often for demo purposes) although the EU also funds some purely research oriented projec…
I met a couple of developers employed and contracted by the EU / Parliament, I really don't want to generalise this but they did not seem the type that would work on such software that you linked to...or the type that would actually recommend OpenBSD..or even actually know what OpenBSD is.
Didn't everyone recommend Linux and Mac OS back when vulnerabilities on these systems just hadn't been discovered (or possibly written) yet? Make OpenBSD popular, add a ton of devs, and attack value, and I'm pretty sure these problems will repeat themselves. I think the second study, which briefly names OpenBSD, does a good job of pointing out that technological changes alone are insufficient.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that would make them likely to contribute back, they'd just use something else. He'd rather have selfish people using good software than choosing to use something inferior.
Maybe, maybe not. They'd all do the same sort of cost/benefit assessment and if they deemed the benefit to outweigh the cost of contributing back they would do it. There'd be some who would change their options and some that would become contributors. Hard to say how it would pan out. But, when you select a license like BSD (which I've done myself) you shouldn't complain when users don't contribute back. You selected…
Theo De Raadt always complained that many of the institutions that run and use OpenBSD don't contribute back. Good to see the EU at least acknowledging that its something that they should explore. They probably use it and its features more than they realise. I suspect there is a strong political motive as well behind being "technologically independent" after the NSA mass surveillance revelations. I like the sound of…