Slash Boxes
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Given that the UK government appears to be in Microsoft's pocket already, what difference will this make?

    There are arguments for and against the GNU GPL, but somehow I think that the government should use and develop GPL software, just to prevent some corrupt/incompetent government official giving away a monopoly. If they work on and with GPL, then it gets out there for everyone.

    If it's sensitive stuff, then the government isn't going to do anything with it anyway - for example the UK GCHQ "invented an

    -- "It's not magic, it's work..."
    • by drhyde (1683) on 2003.06.20 6:17 (#21274) Homepage Journal
      Of course, even if they do base classified work on the GPL they won't have to release the source - they only need to make the source available if they distribute binaries. No distribution of classified binaries == no required distribution of classified source.
      • by ajt (2546) on 2003.06.20 7:10 (#21276) Homepage Journal

        Exactly, the government isn't going to distribute something if it's classified, independent of the licence.

        I like open source software, and my stuff is GPLed, and I understand that others choose different licensing conditions, which I respect. However I don't think the government shouldn't favour one vendor over another by favouring closed source software. GPL protects everyone from unfair advantage and government patronage (or incompetence).

        -- "It's not magic, it's work..."