

SF Mayor on why open source is the new software policy in San Francisco - anigbrowl
http://mashable.com/2010/01/22/open-source-san-francisco/

======
jbronn
"The underlying source code is not copyrighted and therefore available free of
charge to read, modify, and build upon."

This is a serious misconception as open source code _is_ copyrighted -- it's
just licensed to end users with terms that may allow modification and creation
of derivative works. If you don't abide by terms of the particular open source
license, then it's still copyright infringement.

~~~
Skriticos
Very true. He was probably confusing Open Source with Public Domain there.

I also don't like how the article speaks about financial benefit. I mean,
that's more the smaller part of the benefit you get. Oh well..

~~~
pavs
From a mayoral point of view, thats the only thing that matters to him and the
most important reason for choosing to use OSS.

------
DenisM
I was worried about the apparent onslaught of communism until I got to this:

 _San Francisco’s new policy requires city departments to consider open source
software equally with commercial products when purchasing new software._

Seems like a reasonable policy. Although a better policy would be to consider
all solutions on their fitness (open or closed) and demand open formats and
protocols. Busting data lock-in would significantly improve competition and
available choices.

~~~
RyanMcGreal
>Busting data lock-in would significantly improve competition and available
choices.

For various reasons, proprietary software is a lot more likely to employ
proprietary data formats than open source software.

Of course, there are exceptions - e.g. the native GIMP format, which I
understand to be a real hairball; but apparently the developers are working on
a new open standard to replace it in future versions.

~~~
rbanffy
"Of course, there are exceptions - e.g. the native GIMP format, which I
understand to be a real hairball; but apparently the developers are working on
a new open standard to replace it in future versions."

Doesn't having the source code of a reference implementation freely available
make it non-proprietary?

I believe GIMP folks will be perfectly fine if you use their format for the
pictures your paint program saves.

~~~
almost
Depends how hairy the code is really. Any format can be reverse engineered,
but that doesn't make it open. Is it really open if the code is so hard to
read it's not much easier than reverse engineering from a compiled program?

I don't actually know anything about The GIMP's format, just talking in
general.

~~~
rbanffy
I have seen ISO standards (even pre-OOXML ones) that were more obscure than
any code I ever saw.

------
lmkg
From the policy (linked from the article): _Open source software means that
the underlying source code is not copyrighted and therefore available free of
charge to read, modify, and build upon._ Isn't this factually incorrect? I
thought that, say, GPL was technically a type of copyright.

~~~
jcl
GPL is not a "type of copyright"; it's a license that derives its power from
copyright. The same is true of pretty much any license that tries to limit
what you can do -- which includes most open source licenses (BSD, MIT,
Apache).

There are also open source "licenses" that essentially place the code in the
public domain. These are the only ones that fit the article's description.

~~~
LogicHoleFlaw
Unfortunately the public domain concept is not recognized in all countries. If
you wish for your software to be truly available in these nations you will
still need to apply some sort of copyright license, no matter how liberal.

~~~
nzmsv
Even open-source software has a potential problem in some countries. For
example, while OSS is often received free of charge, the government can argue
that the user still got an item of value. So they have to pay taxes on this
"gift".

------
shizcakes
Ultimately, I feel like this is more of a "hey, it's free!" decision than a
"we are going to use, and give back to the community" decision. Open Source is
not a donation to City Government. They should give back to the community if
they are going to have an explicit policy like this.

~~~
pchristensen
I think it's more of an explicit "just because it's free doesn't mean it
sucks" policy. Most organizations need to learn that lesson and it's much
quicker to have the head of the org communicate it than to wait for the IT
people to convince everyone above them in the chain.

------
RK
Massachusetts had a similar policy back in 2003, but I don't remember what the
outcome was. I think the policy was thrown out(??).

<http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-131911.html>

~~~
hristov
You do not remember that whole thing? Microsoft swooped in with their
marketers and lobbyists and got the Mass government to change its mind. The
ostensible reason was that open source software was less compatible with
certain devices for blind people. So Microsoft won that particular round, and
it will be interesting to see what will happen in SF.

However, MS cannot keep throwing millions of dollars at lobbyists and
politicians every time a government decides to look at open source. If they
keep doing it, some governments will go open source just for a slice of those
MS lobbying money. So eventually something will give out.

~~~
RK
_You do not remember that whole thing?_

My memory is coming back now :) I wonder if San Francisco will see anything
similar.

------
mattmanser
Given the recent article about how San Francisco is the worst run city in the
US:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=998554>

Isn't this a good reason NOT to use open source? ;)

~~~
barnaby
That whole thing was bogus, they mixed expenses from the County of San
Francisco with the City of San Francisco (because the boundaries are the
same). Factor for that, and it's actually well run for a city with a major
port, an airport, a great public transit system, and an open source policy.

I'd say it's a good reason FOR using open source.

~~~
smallblacksun
The "City and County of San Francisco" is one legal entity.

