On 2/11/06, Tony Dietrich <td@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > It all depends on what the encryption system ends up as I suspect. And > unfortunately, it may well also depend on the mind-set of the intended > end-users. In that case you will have to pitch the idea to them in such a way that they understand the benefits of the project being open source over being closed & proprietary. The group will have to tell the lawyers that the fact that a piece of code is open source means that by constant audit of several developers it remains high quality and not that it will be exploited more often (If security is their primary concern). But I'm sure your already know that. > Those of us on this list are aware that OpenSource software is as secure, and > often better tested, than commercial, restricted software, BUT educating the > end-users in the UK Legal Sector of that fact may well be beyond the > capabilities of this group. Educating the end user is something that has to be done by the group presenting the proposal. As I said in my previous statement, it's all about how you present it to them. IMO, an organisation looks at the usability of the system from their point of view. If they like it, they'll take it. All you have to do is to tell them in soft terms that the contributions to the project have to come from the open source community if the service has to be free of charge or low cost. > So if this service is to gain the acceptance of the intended end-users, and > perhaps more importantly, get the backing of those members of the Judiciary > who would end up needing to use it, then we may be forced to take the project > to a more restricted framework. I don't agree with that. > This is far from my preference, and is not actually my idea, but knowing how > stubborn and stuck-in-the-mud some members of this profession are, I can see > where that argument is coming from :-( -- Regards Vivek Registered Linux User #374218 Livin' The iLife ~ http://www.ilifenet.net
