Colin Brown wrote:
> Adrian Midgley wrote:
> "IE there is an absolute disconnect between control of (access to) source code
> and control of operational servers"
> 
> Agree.  The original clarification was that AO's remit re GPASS is only running
> the Managed Servers, and the executables also run on hundreds of practice
> servers.  All GPASS code remains the copyright of the Crown, and supply is
> administered by National Services Scotland.  However the source code has not
> been released despite as good a case as possible (I suggest) being made by many
> to the technical people in the Deloitte Review, who were unable to convince NSS
> to release the code.  
Aargh.

 > But Deloitte did convince them that the code was not good
> enough to support development for foreseeable near-future functions.
Mind you, the Netscape Mozilla browser code was not very good, hence the 
rewrite that led to Firefox/Iceweasel.  (Meanwhile IE which was not 
rewritten has appeared to remain holey).  Rewriting a known bad system 
has some advantages over buying a newly written system of unknown 
code-quality.

> 2. Servers - nearly - the AO server farm is part of the NSS Infrastructure for
> all NHS Scotland, and will support dozens of applications, including their own
> hosting of Vision, the first instance of which is going live real soon now.

I may have put that badly.  In a server farm I'd be surprised if a 
single machine had Vision and GPASS running on it, in fact I'd be 
surprised if the dozens of apps didn't each get a server (or two servers 
scale as needed).
VIrtualisation makes that more complex and obscure of course, but I'd 
still expect to see a rack of servers initially running nothing, ready 
to take up any loads, and brought in as servers for one app per (virtual 
or real) server.

> The difficulty we have as end-users is that the relations between all these
> organisations are governed either by Civil Service procedures, or by contracts
> that are a tad difficult to access, or understand.  Accountability vanishes in
> the murk.

I suspect that there are also sections of code which it may be felt 
could in some circumstances have doubt cast upon their licencing, IE the 
Crown's right to use them or to distribute them, and that it may be felt 
in some quarters that not showing anyone anything is the most expedient 
way of avoiding unwelcome comment.  I believe this worries many 
expensive people in IT organisations.

A huge advantage of FLOSS, as any fule kno, is that the licencing is 
easy to understand and handle, and therefore avoids accumulated complexity.