I saw a lot of articles about “mandating open source in Switzerland.” This isn’t true. The actual requirement is that the source code must be available (with some exceptions) for software developed within the scope of administration. It's more akin to code escrow than true open source licensing.
Only the paragraph 2 opens the door to FOSS licensing but it also the open the door to non-free license. A list of FOSS licenses should have been mentioned clearly.
@avron The 4 freedoms of free software is just an overall definition and a lot of non-free license can sometime fall into the description.
@avron NASA Open Source Agreement, Open Public License, Reciprocal Public License and many more new license limit the commercial field in some ways.
I don't see how the wording of the second paragraph would include the option of such restrictions. That said, the text of the law is perhaps too vague and a reference to a list of licenses, or to something endorsable by the FSF or OSI would have been much clearer.
From about 2h31 minutes after the start in https://media.fsfe.org/w/aQs7EbEUQGt4DP13SsqAJ7, there is a presentation on that law.
@avron They should have added a list of proper open source/free software licenses. Like what EUPL does for some of the EU project mentioning the requirement. Now it’s ambiguous and a vendor can play with it.
- replies
- 1
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 0
@avron There was an old one for the region Bruxelles in late nineties but not sure if it was really a success. Let’s the see the outcome in CH and how suppliers play with the rules or not ;-)