

Open source is illegal? - pwg
http://opensource.com/government/11/8/open-source-illegal

======
archangel_one
It doesn't seem to obviously be limited to open source software? The article
suggests the illegality comes from the lack of a signed contract, which you
don't get with any software under a proprietary EULA either. I assume this
just gets ignored though...

Most of the rest of the article seems to be about this Romanian tender
business, but excluding free software from that wouldn't actually make that
software illegal, so it's apparently not really relevant to the title.

~~~
mmahut
See <http://opensource.com/comment/reply/3850/7515>

------
Aqwis
It's not called the "Slovak Republic", but rather just Slovakia. The proper
name of the neighbouring Czech Republic is just that instead of something like
"Czechia", but this is not true for Slovakia.

~~~
mmahut
Slovakia is a shorted name for Slovak Republic. Both are acceptable.

~~~
Aqwis
Sure, but it's like writing "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland" instead of "United Kingdom".

------
userulluipeste
I'm a romanian and I knew nothing about it. It seems to be illegal only for
governmental use because of the lack of accountability. If you think about it,
it make sense. "WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE" doesn't sound promising
or fit for governmental critical systems.

~~~
clyfe

        On page 64 of the 'Specifications', in a paragraph
        highlighted in yellow, the ministry writes: 
        "All versions of software that are part of the offer 
        may not be published under a 'free software license' 
        - GPL or similar."
    

When you licence your solution to the government, you do so under a commercial
licence. The 'Specifications' were asking you not to have any parts of your
software under a free license (to/from third parties).

Of course this move is to limit competitiveness since EU explicitly favors
open software: <http://www.osor.eu/eupl/introduction-to-the-eupl-project>

This limits the little guys that try to cut costs by using open software as
building blocks for the solution, so only the giants vendoring expensive
"enterprise" solutions can participate. And rest assured, open solutions are
many times of better quality.

~~~
ubernostrum
"Free software license" is a tricky term. Doesn't Windows still have BSD
copyright notices embedded in it?

------
jo0ne
Interesting, I visited Slovakia + Czech Republic a few years ago and when I
was there noticed that the overwhelming majority of computers there (Internet
Cafe / POS in shops/bars / Booking systems in hotels) appeared to be running
some form of Linux.

------
andreasvc
Isn't there a big difference between 'illegal' and 'not recognized/accepted'??
This doesn't prevent anyone anywhere from making and using open source
software if they please.

~~~
ma2rten
You could be sued by the copyright holder if you redistribute it. So it's
illegal.

~~~
andreasvc
I don't get what you're saying. If the copyright holder releases something
under an open source license, then he is not going to sue you for doing
precisely what the license is mean to facilitate.

It would only be "illegal" if if it's against the law to write a program and
reveal its source code, and that would simply be non-sensical.

~~~
mmahut
Any of the thousands of linux contributors has the every right to sue you if
you are redistributing his code without his written permission (remember, GPL
is invalid in law regards in SVK). I don't think it's very sane to trust the
copyright holders' good mood to not sue you when you are infringing his
copyrights - and yes, you are infringing it if you don't have his _signed_
agreement, that's the law and no matter you write and call a license you
cannot out-rule that.

In addition, corporations are owning part of that copyright too - if you look
at software patents war, it clearly shows what tools are to be used against
the competition.

I'm not sure if I understand your last sentence.

------
dramaticus3
The GPL binds your hands.

What if you put your code in the public domain? No clauses, no contract
required, no problem?

"Open source with obligations" is a better nomenclature for the GPL. Avoid it
where you can.

~~~
andreasvc
No it does not. The license only applies to other people. As the copyright
holder the choice of license does not bind you in anyway; this is why it is
possible to release something under multiple licenses (say GPL & BSD),
provided that you fully own the copyright. The GPL does bind the behavior of
others, but only to assure reciprocity. It assures that corporations cannot
freeload off your efforts without contributing back.

