Talk:Open Source Policy
From OpenMuni Wiki
The definitions of "open source" used in Vancouver and SF are more akin to "public domain" than to free software. A more fitting definition would involve software and related materials received by the city with source code under licenses that allow copying, modification, and redistribution to the general public with no payments. Add in some language about patent licensing and you're in business.
"Commercial" is a problematic term, even if you ignore the billions of dollars in commerce around free software. Proprietary software shops don't like the word "proprietary". They think it has negative connotations, which is true. "Closed source" might be a useful term in opposition to "open source".
Here's the acid test: if cities buy some software, can they put it on their website for anybody who wants to download? If not, it ain't free.
What is it?
Software and source code that can be distributed to anyone free of charge with the right to make derivative works.
Using an Open Source License versus Public Domain
The appropriate license can help further the intended policy goals. Public domain means there is no license and therefore no sustaining structure or protections around the source code.
What do you want to accomplish?
- inclusiveness, accessibility, open options
- connection to open standards: even if data managed is not a standard, it is by defacto open for anyone to interface with since they are also free to use the same open source tools that were used to manage the original data.
- cost savings, ROI, sustainability
- support developer community
An Open Source License can:
- Provide a familiar framework for the developer community
- Be used to provide protections for the author, a warranty disclaimer for example
- Help grow and sustain a large code base (but not for all, eg BSD)
