| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
The Digital Software Security ActThe Digital Software Security ActPosted Aug 15, 2002 4:57 UTC (Thu) by odonnell (guest, #3265)Parent article: The Digital Software Security Act
I think that the article exaggerates the extreme nature of the proposed DSSA. The DSSA essentially only requires that when the state purchases software, it receives software. The so-called "purchase" of proprietary software normally does not involve the actual acquisition of software, but only of executable code and a limited license to execute it under certain conditions. Phrases such as "software that does not necessarily meet the Open Source Definition" invite a misinterpretation. Neither "Open Source" in OSS, nor "Free" in FS, actually describe the quality of the software itself. Rather, they describe the rights that come with the software. The DSSA does not limit the software that may be purchased by the state. Rather, it limits the conditions under which software may be purchased. Similarly, the phrase "law that requires the use of free software in all situations - even where such software does not exist" is misleading. Under the DSSA, the state may purchase any available software. But it may not license the execution of software under highly restricted terms. One may argue the wisdom of such a restriction on licensing terms, but it's not particularly extreme. Compare the proposed DSSA to a law that prohibited the state police from using cars that they leased without the right to perform safety inspections. As far as I know, nobody has ever offered to lease cars under such terms, but if such leases were common, it might be very reasonable for the state to refuse by statute to take them. BTW, the DSSA appears to me to allow the state to engage in contracts by which companies use their own software to perform operations on behalf of the state, with no requirement that such software carry an open source license, or in fact any license at all. Such contracts can give the state the benefits of executing proprietary software, while making the contractor totally responsible for performance of the specified operations. The responsibility of a mere licensor of software is probably much less. Mike O'Donnell
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||