Perhaps we should recognise that Becta is staffed by folk who learnt about computers through the same limited view of IT that was discussed earlier. Some of them will have gone on to gain degrees in Computer Science, only to discover on graduating that the real world expects them to start learning all over again. The few people I've met from Becta who had any real experience, were as critical of the organisation as any. I've also sent a letter to Own Lynch, maybe we can get him along to the FLOSSIE Conference as well as his boss. John Ingleby ************ On Sat, 2003-12-27 at 04:26, David Bowles wrote:
For a specification upon which some £63 million per annum of school / teacher laptop spending is based, I'd say BECTa is being down right irresponsible and even negligent in its lax use of terminology.
This is wholly unacceptable regarding how a very considerable sum of public money is being be spent.
I wonder if there's a longer more precise spec or contract that BECTa requires 'authorised suppliers' are obliged to sign?
David Bowles
What exactly is the meaning of the term "freeware" in this context? Is bundled stuff (e.g. Outlook Express) "freeware"? Is OSS "freeware"? Sure, neither is obtained "in return for a consideration" (as I think the law of contract phrases it), but that still leaves lots of ambiguity. For instance, is a package written (compiled?) in-house really excluded? And if in-house compilation is acceptable, can use of an identical binary be excluded either?
OSS is difficult to categorise quite so simply as "freeware" or not, since one usually pays for a distro...