Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by DowntownGator, Oct 18, 2013.
Our dumb-ass government spent $500+ million on open source codes... and that's the best argument you have?
Let's see if this huge scandal exists anywhere other than the
Weekly Standard. Basically, it appears that the author of the article decided that the government (maybe even Obama personally) had done something dastardly. Called the company it decided had been wrong and got a response that the company would look into it.
Bush's fault :ninja:
Well they didn't spend $500M (it was $93M) and tons of applications are written on "open source codes." Facebook was originally written in PHP, which is free and open source. Bit Torrent is written in Python which is free and open source.
If you'll note, in the other thread, I railed against the egregious costs of the application (and dialed back a bit when I read about the actual cost).
"It cost the federal government more than $300 million for outside contractors to set up the Obamacare website that has had so much trouble in its first three weeks of operation.
Most of that money has gone to six contractors that together have received more than $200 million in taxpayer funds, with the biggest single contractor receiving $88 million.
"A Reuters review of government documents shows that the contract to build the federal Healthcare.gov online insurance website - key to President Barack Obama's signature healthcare reform - tripled in potential total value to nearly $292 million as new money was assigned to the work beginning in April this year.
Sorry, I meant open-source program that's been re-coded.
Yeah, so did I. It's called using libraries. Facebook did it, MS does it, Apple does it ... everyone does it. And if they had left in the developer credit there'd be absolutely no problem.
Not for sure but it sounds like some lazy or ill-informed coders.
I wouldn't say laziness, as it takes less effort to leave the code in.
My hunch? To comply with coding standards they passed off the code as their own to skip a vetting process. And I understand this having gone through the government security nonsense myself. But it's a client-side table library, it poses no threat.
True if they are just using blocks of code and not doing any kind of rewrite. Which seems to be what you are saying was the case.
Right, they took an open library and removed the comments.
Is that legal?
The idea is not bad. Unfortunately it's not kosher.
Legal? Yes. But it's all subject to the license. Some licenses say "have a blast ,do what you want," some say "only for non-profit use" and some say "do what you want, but leave in the comment/credit."
The problem - particularly if you use a minifying process - is these processes aren't aware of what the license is. So someone might say "oh, this table library is great and free, let's include it" and then six months later when it goes into production everything gets run through a minifier.