Gordon, JC (John) wrote:
> David, I am convinced of the merits of open source but also of the
> rights of developers not to take that route.
Naturally, though that's not an argument I was trying to make.
> For the general case of scrutiny of non open software we do have an
> option which is for certification by some trusted third party.
Certification by some trusted third party is not, in my view, anywhere
nearly comparable to public peer review.
Moreover, the very fact that the software is non-open means that it is
less secure -- and in a project of this nature strong security is
absolutely vital.
We don't have to use dCache, and the fact that it is not going to be
published under an open source license is a compelling reason to look
for alternatives.
Cheers,
David
--
David McBride <[log in to unmask]>
Department of Computing, Imperial College, London
|