SF Mayor on why open source is the new software policy in San Francisco | Hacker News Reader

SF Mayor on why open source is the new software policy in San Francisco

mashable.com

55 pointsanigbrowl27 comments

"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.

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..

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

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.

>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.

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

That's kind of a moot point if you require open formats from the start.

"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.

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.

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

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.

That's most definitely incorrect. And it's not just a technicality; copyright law is the legal foundation of free/open source software.

You can also charge for open source software.

Also, I believe if you find a free piece of open source software that is useful to you, one that comes free as in free beer, then you should be donating to the developer/s; even if its just enough to buy them a beer. Show the developer a little gratitude.

If you don't feel like going that far, even a thank you note is really appreciated.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

It's probably a little early for them to have given back.

But eventually I would expect them to make available apps, services, etc. that they use to run SF, so that other cities can use them and contribute.

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

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.

You do not remember that whole thing?

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

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? ;)

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.

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

Oakland handles all the container ships, SFO is in unincorporated San Mateo County, and the public transit is objectively bad - terrible compared to New York, Boston, or Chicago (and possible other cities I haven't been to).

is there any reason other than our collective stockholm syndrome not to expect a modern shipping hub and technological powerhouse city to be run at a hefty profit?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com