Advertisement
Front, Kernel, Security, Distributions, Development. See your byline here on LWN.net.
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
The Digital Software Security ActThe Digital Software Security ActPosted Aug 16, 2002 1:23 UTC (Fri) by omg_foo (guest, #3276)In reply to: The Digital Software Security Act by DeletedUser816 Parent article: The Digital Software Security Act "Or is 'open source' here being used as a code for 'non-monopoly'? In that case, demanding open file formats would be a more reasonable (and maybe more effective) approach" This is only part of the problem. I have much first hand experience. Say we take the authors example of a program for "the management of mineral rights". Obviously, there is no COT software for this. Say you send out an RFP, evaluate bids and hired a contractor that writes a large monolithic proprietary application in 1995 using Win 3.1 and Paradox for DOS as a back end. Say the project costs you $500,000 for the product. Now you want to upgrade the product to an new platform, you have little choice but to hire the original contractor for whatever he charges. Otherwise you waste money paying another contractor to rewrite the entire application from scratch. You can't even produce a fair and balanced RFP that multiple contractors can bid fairly. "Software that's not general-purpose enough to draw all those eyeballs to the code and to attract volunteers to support might not be the best fit for open source development. The contractor develops the stuff as cheaply and quickly as possible and then moves on. Now who deals with all the bugs and security holes?" Just because it's proprietary don't expect the developer to not cut as many corners as possible. As you stated they will "develops the stuff as cheaply and quickly as possible and then moves on" independent of the license agreements. After all this maximizes their profit and, if it's proprietary they can lock you in for improvements afterward. I've had contractors intensionally low ball bids, barely meet specifications, and rape me later to make the product functional. In fact my recent experience with specifying some OSS solutions is quite the opposite since the OSS developer has a wealth of available free tools they can apply to the product that simplifies and improves the product without affecting the
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||