Switzerland mandates all software developed for the government be open sourced

CAVOK@lemmy.world · 4 months ago

Switzerland mandates all software developed for the government be open sourced

Sibbo · 4 months ago

Under what license?

breadsmasher@lemmy.world · 4 months ago

From the cross post linked, it has a link to this article

https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/open-source-observatory-osor/news/new-open-source-law-switzerland

at the top, is a link to a (non-english) post which mentions licensing.

https://www.ti8m.com/de/blog/open-source-gesetz-schweiz

Within this post, is a link to a github account which I think is related to this government/regulation/Open Source Office, whatever

https://github.com/kanton-bern/oss

Finally

this repo has this license, which doesnt seem to be like GPL/MIT or whatever? Doesn’t mean this license will be used for all these open source projects, but its the only thing I have seen relating to a specified license

https://github.com/kanton-bern/oss/blob/master/LICENSE


Copyright (c) 2018 Kanton Bern

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
3. Neither the name of the copyright holder nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

---

Copyright (c) 2018 Kanton Bern

Weiterverbreitung und Verwendung in nichtkompilierter oder kompilierter Form, mit oder ohne Veränderung, sind unter den folgenden Bedingungen zulässig:
1. Weiterverbreitete Software-Quelltexte müssen den obigen Copyright-Vermerk, diese Liste der Bedingungen und die ihnen folgende Haftungsklausel enthalten.
2. Weiterverbreitete kompilierte Exemplare müssen den obigen Copyright-Vermerk, diese Liste der Bedingungen und die ihnen folgende Haftungsklausel in der Dokumentation und/oder anderen Materialien, die mit dem Exemplar verbreitet werden, enthalten.
3. Weder der Name des Urheberrechtsinhabers noch die Namen der Beitragsleistenden dürfen zum Kennzeichnen oder Bewerben von Produkten, die von dieser Software abgeleitet wurden, ohne spezielle vorherige schriftliche Genehmigung verwendet werden.

DIESE SOFTWARE WIRD VOM URHEBERRECHTSINHABER UND DEN BEITRAGSLEISTENDEN OHNE JEGLICHE AUSDRÜCKLICHE ODER IMPLIZIERTE GARANTIEN ZUR VERFÜGUNG GESTELLT, DIE UNTER ANDEREM EINSCHLIESSEN: DIE IMPLIZIERTE GARANTIE DER VERWENDBARKEIT DER SOFTWARE FÜR EINEN BESTIMMTEN ZWECK. AUF KEINEN FALL IST DER URHEBERRECHTSINHABER ODER DIE BEITRAGSLEISTENDEN FÜR IRGENDWELCHE DIREKTEN, INDIREKTEN, ZUFÄLLIGEN, SPEZIELLEN, BEISPIELHAFTEN ODER FOLGESCHÄDEN (UNTER ANDEREM VERSCHAFFEN VON ERSATZGÜTERN ODER -DIENSTLEISTUNGEN; EINSCHRÄNKUNG DER NUTZUNGSFÄHIGKEIT; VERLUST VON NUTZUNGSFÄHIGKEIT, DATEN, ODER PROFIT; ODER GESCHÄFTSUNTERBRECHUNG), WIE AUCH IMMER VERURSACHT UND UNTER WELCHER VERPFLICHTUNG AUCH IMMER, OB IN VERTRAG, STRIKTER VERPFLICHTUNG ODER UNERLAUBTER HANDLUNG (INKLUSIVE FAHRLÄSSIGKEIT) VERANTWORTLICH, AUF WELCHEM WEG SIE AUCH IMMER DURCH DIE BENUTZUNG DIESER SOFTWARE ENTSTANDEN SIND, SOGAR, WENN SIE AUF DIE MÖGLICHKEIT EINES SOLCHEN SCHADENS HINGEWIESEN WORDEN SIND.

the_strange@feddit.org · 4 months ago

this repo has this license, which doesn’t seem to be like GPL/MIT or whatever?

The license seems to be the 3 Clause BSD license. https://opensource.org/license/BSD-3-clause

Here’s some information regarding compatibility between this license and MIT/GPL: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/11345

breadsmasher@lemmy.world · 4 months ago

Ah nice one - because it didn’t specify explicitly, I didn’t pay attention to it being a section of a license instead

emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works · 4 months ago

3-clause BSD is a full licence, not a section of one. The name is to distinguish it from the older 4-clause BSD licence.

earmuff@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 months ago

ti&m is just a privately owned consulting company

The github repo seems to be owned by the Kanton Bern (Canton of Bern) which is basically just one of the states within the federation. I hope not all of the cantons will have their own licenses and copy one that is approved by the federal government.

breadsmasher@lemmy.world · 4 months ago

Ah thanks for context! I wasn’t really sure, it just seemed like a logical trail to follow to, seeing if there was any license listed somewhere

earmuff@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 months ago

You did a very good job, my friend. I‘m just Swiss by accident and tried to give some more info to whoever it concerns :)

EherNicht@feddit.org · 4 months ago

From an rational standpoint is makes sense to demand the code to be open for security reasons. The license isn’t as important as it can still be browsed through. Nevertheless, libre software encourages further development which can also further improve the security of the product.

jabathekek · 4 months ago

Security is also bolstered by people reviewing the code and finding bugs which they can report as opposed to relying solely on a companies in-house developers which is usually a bad idea as we can see by microsoft’s current level of security.

EherNicht@feddit.org · 4 months ago

Sure. That’s what I meant by that :)

earmuff@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 months ago

I just read the new law and there is the following legal text (translates from German by Deepl): „Internationally established license texts are to be used as far as possible and reasonable. Liability claims by licensees are to be excluded insofar as this is legally possible.“

So the law does not tell what license to use and could potentially change from project to project.