In a comment on LinkedIN, Peter Brown suggested to change the name ADMS.F/OSS as it leads to believe that all software assets described by it are free and open-source software, which does not necessarily need to be the case.
Component
MiscellaneousCategory
improvement
Login or create an account to comment.
Comments
I believe we do not have to be dogmatic about F/OSS. The ADMS.F/OSS vocabulary could indeed also be used for describing non-F/OSS. For example, the controlled vocabulary for "licence type" is not restricted to classifying F/OSS licences. On the other hand, Joinup currently encourages public administrations to share and reuse software under a licence that is approved by either the Open Source Initiative (OSI) or the Free Software Foundation (FSF). See the ten principles for software on Joinup:
https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/software/page/ten_principles
As we have been operating in this frame of reference, the name "ADMS.F/OSS" seemed justified, but I agree that having F/OSS in the name could be too restrictive. The Working Group will decide on these and other comments during the June 5 Virtual Meeting.
Yes, the model allows to describe non-F/OSS software. However, the name creates an implementation barrier for mixed environments and this might reduce the amount of adopters.
I think a replacement of non-F/OSS software is only possible if you make all used software visible and do software management on top of it.
Use Case: Query the information system to find HR tools, 10 software projects are doing the same(3 commercial, 7 F/OSS) and one of these becomes the strategic EU target and you start to gather knowledge, use effective, contribute and become a member for such strategic selected projects at committer or committee level.
ADMS.F/OSS was renamed into ADMS.SW. A motivation for this is given in the specifcation.