Risultati
70 risultati
-
italia
Annex C: Open source licence guide
Compatibility of licences depends on the transfer of intellectual property rights by the author. In order to preserve the freedom and reusability of software created over time, copyleft licences are the licences that yield fewer rights in this context. As regards compatibility, two scenarios must be differentiated:. The creation of a new work from existing components, with a single licence. The assembly and distribution of multiple interacting components, each with a different licence. As regards the case of creating a new work under a single licence, the compatibility matrix can be explained as follows:. Works released under a public domain can be released under any other licence. Works released under non-copyleft licences are releasable with copyleft licences. Works released under copyleft licences may only be released with copyleft licences, provided that the two licences are compatible. On the other hand:. Works licensed under a public domain, non-copyleft or weak copyleft may interact as stand-alone components with any other application, while respecting any provisions regarding references to the original code and the distribution of any modifications. Works released under a copyleft licence may only interact as stand-alone components with other components released under a compatible copyleft licence ...
-
italia
Annex D: Guide to reusing open source software
In the event that the maintainer of open source software whose ownership is not attributed to a public administration has fully implemented the modification proposals (see previous paragraph) presented by the Responsible party, the latter is still required to publish the code in the code hosting tool of the administration to allow it to be reused, specifying in the README file that this code has been transposed from the original project, with a link to the repository of the same. As prescribed by the guidelines, ‘reusable software’ is software released by a public administration in compliance with Article 69 of the CAD. Therefore, a public administration that adopts open source software not originating in the context of the PA, is required to make it available for reuse, indicating its origin ...
-
italia
Annex A: Guide to publishing software as open source
As soon as the public repository has been opened, registration on Developers Italia MUST be carried out, to ensure that the repository is indexed and available in the search engine on the site. Registration is a two-step process:. Publication of a publiccode.yml file in the root directory of the repository. A ‘publiccode.yml’ file is a standard that identifies the project as ‘useful software for the public administration’, and at the same time provides a range of useful information for the assessment of the software for reuse. This file will be automatically detected by the Developers Italia crawler in order to generate the relative data sheet in the catalogue. Documentation on the format can be found here: https://github.com/italia/publiccode.yml. Adding the code hosting tool to the search engine. In order to ensure that Developers Italia correctly identify the repository as belonging to the public administration, the code hosting tool (or rather, the ‘organisation’ within the same) must be registered the first time it is used, associating it with the public administration. The procedure to be followed is detailed here: https://onboarding.developers.italia.it ...
-
italia
Annex B: Open source software maintenance guide
All interactions initiated by external users within the code hosting platform, and in particular through its issue tracker, SHOULD be examined by the Responsible party within two working days, and within this period a response MUST be provided. The answer may not be exhaustive, and where it is not possible to answer in detail immediately, it is advisable to provide a courteous response with some initial considerations. Bug fixes. Bug reports received from external users through the issue tracking system must be analysed in the same way as those received from the awarding administration. If the fix is compatible (in terms of time and cost) with the activities provided for in the contract, it may be executed without further approval. If, on the other hand, the fix is not compatible (in terms of time and cost) with the maintenance activities provided for by the contract, the issue must be kept open and the administration informed of the decision. The diagnosis and resolution process must be publicly documented within the issue tracker, with the exception of information that has implications for the security of the systems in production, which MUST be kept confidential until the implementation of corrections and only then MUST it be published for the benefit of other users of the software. The issue report MUST be kept open until the fix and the original user SHOULD be asked to personally verify the quality of the fix before closing it. If there is no response for 30 days, the Responsible party may close the issue, after having documented the successful acceptance of the change. Requests for new functionalities. Requests for new functionalities must be assessed by the Responsible party, in agreement with the administration, in relation to their relevance to the project. If not deemed relevant, they SHOULD be closed and an explanation provided to the proposer. If deemed relevant, they MUST be left open until their possible implementation, but the proposer MUST be provided with rapid feedback and an assessment of the technical feasibility of the application and suggestions on any other way to achieve the stated objective. The Responsible party MAY ask the proposer, if necessary, for more details on the use case justifying the request. The implementation of the required functionalities MUST be approved by the administration in the event that this entails costs for the same (e.g. in the event that the contract is structured with a consumption model). Alternatively, the Responsible party MAY decide to follow up the request by implementing it in the code, without causing any additional burden to the administration and within the time-frame of the contract (for example, pursuant to other commercial agreements on the same software). Requests for information or support. Requests for information about the project SHOULD be processed by the Responsible party within 2 working days. The answers must be limited to the technical characteristics of the software and to questions posed by developers or other administrations for the purposes of understanding technical features, reuse, collaboration or development. The Responsible party is not required to respond to any other party or to provide assistance with the use of the software or to provide answers with regard to the use that the administration makes of the software or in general with regard to other matters for which the administration is responsible. Code contributions. Code contributions sent through the collaboration mechanisms provided by the chosen code hosting platform (e.g. through a pull request) MUST be assessed by the Responsible party who MUST provide feedback to the user with considerations on the feasibility of integration. The Responsible party SHOULD incorporate all code contributions that are not incompatible with the objectives of the provision, providing the contributor with adequate explanation in the event of refusal ...
-
italia
Annex E: Summary table of the elements required for the decision-making process
In order to facilitate the comparative assessment, through a decision-making process for public administrations, which takes into account the information contained in Article 68 as well as Article 69 of the CAD, reference shall be made to the following summary framework:. Oblig ation to reuse Artic le 69 (1). Oblig ation to acqui re owner ship Artic le 69 (2). Oblig ation for econo mic asses sment (TCO) Artic le 68 (1a). Oblig ation for techn ical asses sment Artic le 68 (1b). Ensur ing inter opera bilit y betwe en publi c admin istra tions Artic le 68 (1a). Secur ity guara ntees Artic le 68 (1a). Priva cy law compl iance Artic le 68 (1a). Adequ ate servi ce level s Artic le 68 (1a). Softw are devel oped on behal f of the publi c admin istra tion. Yes. Yes. Yes, with the excep tion of acqui sitio n. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. The reuse of softw are or parts there of devel oped on behal f of the publi c admin istra tion. Yes, only in the case of modif icati on. Yes. Yes, with the excep tion of acqui sitio n. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Free softw are or open sourc e code. Yes, only in the case of modif icati on. No. Yes, with the excep tion of acqui sitio n. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Softw are usabl e in cloud compu ting mode. Yes, only for softw are alrea dy owned by or imple mente d ad hoc for the PA. Yes, only for softw are alrea dy owned by or imple mente d ad hoc for the PA. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Propr ietar y softw are throu gh use of a user licen ce. No, excep t for softw are creat ed to enabl e appli catio n inter opera bilit y (e.g. API). No, excep t for softw are creat ed to enabl e appli catio n inter opera bilit y (e.g. API). Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Softw are combi natio n of the previ ous solut ions. Yes, only for softw are alrea dy owned by or imple mente d ad hoc for the PA. Yes, only for softw are alrea dy owned by or imple mente d ad hoc for the PA. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes ...
-
italia
1. Preface
This document was drafted by the working group established by Resolution No 237/2017, a collaboration between the Agency for Digital Italy (Agenzia per l’Italia Digitale - hereinafter AgID) and the Digital Transformation Team (Team per la Trasformazione Digitale):. Viviana De Paola, AgID - Digital transformation area. Daniela Intravaia, AgID - Coordination of international activities. Guido Pera, AgID - Digital transformation area. Umberto Rosini, AgID - Architecture, standards and infrastructure area. Guido Scorza, Digital Transformation Team ...
-
italia
2.5. Macro-phase 2: Analysis of reusable PA solutions and open source solutions
In the event that it is impossible to identify a solution that satisfies, at least to a large extent, the requirements of the administration, between ‘reusable PA solutions’ and ‘open source solutions’, a document is prepared (without format constrictions) that justifies the reasons for the ascertained impossibility, which will be kept with the documents filed for the proceedings. The public administration continues the comparative assessment exercise by following up with the phases anticipated within the next macro-phase 3 ...
-
italia
2.4. Macro-phase 1: Identification of requirements
The administration shall draft a document describing its requirements to be used in the subsequent stages of the comparative assessment. The activities anticipated in this phase are:. drafting of the document describing the requirements, which shall contain the results of the previous phases 1.1 and 1.2. This phase concludes with the:. availability of the document describing the requirements ...
-
italia
Annex E: Summary table of the elements required for the decision-making process
In order to facilitate the comparative assessment, through a decision-making process for public administrations, which takes into account the information contained in Article 68 as well as Article 69 of the CAD, reference shall be made to the following summary framework:. Oblig ation to reuse Artic le 69 (1). Oblig ation to acqui re owner ship Artic le 69 (2). Oblig ation for econo mic asses sment (TCO) Artic le 68 (1a). Oblig ation for techn ical asses sment Artic le 68 (1b). Ensur ing inter opera bilit y betwe en publi c admin istra tions Artic le 68 (1a). Secur ity guara ntees Artic le 68 (1a). Priva cy law compl iance Artic le 68 (1a). Adequ ate servi ce level s Artic le 68 (1a). Softw are devel oped on behal f of the publi c admin istra tion. Yes. Yes. Yes, with the excep tion of acqui sitio n. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. The reuse of softw are or parts there of devel oped on behal f of the publi c admin istra tion. Yes, only in the case of modif icati on. Yes. Yes, with the excep tion of acqui sitio n. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Free softw are or open sourc e code. Yes, only in the case of modif icati on. No. Yes, with the excep tion of acqui sitio n. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Softw are usabl e in cloud compu ting mode. Yes, only for softw are alrea dy owned by or imple mente d ad hoc for the PA. Yes, only for softw are alrea dy owned by or imple mente d ad hoc for the PA. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Propr ietar y softw are throu gh use of a user licen ce. No, excep t for softw are creat ed to enabl e appli catio n inter opera bilit y (e.g. API). No, excep t for softw are creat ed to enabl e appli catio n inter opera bilit y (e.g. API). Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Softw are combi natio n of the previ ous solut ions. Yes, only for softw are alrea dy owned by or imple mente d ad hoc for the PA. Yes, only for softw are alrea dy owned by or imple mente d ad hoc for the PA. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes ...
-
italia
1. Preface
This document was drafted by the working group established by Resolution No 237/2017, a collaboration between the Agency for Digital Italy (Agenzia per l’Italia Digitale - hereinafter AgID) and the Digital Transformation Team (Team per la Trasformazione Digitale):. Viviana De Paola, AgID - Digital transformation area. Daniela Intravaia, AgID - Coordination of international activities. Guido Pera, AgID - Digital transformation area. Umberto Rosini, AgID - Architecture, standards and infrastructure area. Guido Scorza, Digital Transformation Team ...
-
italia
Annex B: Open source software maintenance guide
All interactions initiated by external users within the code hosting platform, and in particular through its issue tracker, SHOULD be examined by the Responsible party within two working days, and within this period a response MUST be provided. The answer may not be exhaustive, and where it is not possible to answer in detail immediately, it is advisable to provide a courteous response with some initial considerations. Bug fixes. Bug reports received from external users through the issue tracking system must be analysed in the same way as those received from the awarding administration. If the fix is compatible (in terms of time and cost) with the activities provided for in the contract, it may be executed without further approval. If, on the other hand, the fix is not compatible (in terms of time and cost) with the maintenance activities provided for by the contract, the issue must be kept open and the administration informed of the decision. The diagnosis and resolution process must be publicly documented within the issue tracker, with the exception of information that has implications for the security of the systems in production, which MUST be kept confidential until the implementation of corrections and only then MUST it be published for the benefit of other users of the software. The issue report MUST be kept open until the fix and the original user SHOULD be asked to personally verify the quality of the fix before closing it. If there is no response for 30 days, the Responsible party may close the issue, after having documented the successful acceptance of the change. Requests for new functionalities. Requests for new functionalities must be assessed by the Responsible party, in agreement with the administration, in relation to their relevance to the project. If not deemed relevant, they SHOULD be closed and an explanation provided to the proposer. If deemed relevant, they MUST be left open until their possible implementation, but the proposer MUST be provided with rapid feedback and an assessment of the technical feasibility of the application and suggestions on any other way to achieve the stated objective. The Responsible party MAY ask the proposer, if necessary, for more details on the use case justifying the request. The implementation of the required functionalities MUST be approved by the administration in the event that this entails costs for the same (e.g. in the event that the contract is structured with a consumption model). Alternatively, the Responsible party MAY decide to follow up the request by implementing it in the code, without causing any additional burden to the administration and within the time-frame of the contract (for example, pursuant to other commercial agreements on the same software). Requests for information or support. Requests for information about the project SHOULD be processed by the Responsible party within 2 working days. The answers must be limited to the technical characteristics of the software and to questions posed by developers or other administrations for the purposes of understanding technical features, reuse, collaboration or development. The Responsible party is not required to respond to any other party or to provide assistance with the use of the software or to provide answers with regard to the use that the administration makes of the software or in general with regard to other matters for which the administration is responsible. Code contributions. Code contributions sent through the collaboration mechanisms provided by the chosen code hosting platform (e.g. through a pull request) MUST be assessed by the Responsible party who MUST provide feedback to the user with considerations on the feasibility of integration. The Responsible party SHOULD incorporate all code contributions that are not incompatible with the objectives of the provision, providing the contributor with adequate explanation in the event of refusal ...
-
italia
Annex A: Guide to publishing software as open source
As soon as the public repository has been opened, registration on Developers Italia MUST be carried out, to ensure that the repository is indexed and available in the search engine on the site. Registration is a two-step process:. Publication of a publiccode.yml file in the root directory of the repository. A ‘publiccode.yml’ file is a standard that identifies the project as ‘useful software for the public administration’, and at the same time provides a range of useful information for the assessment of the software for reuse. This file will be automatically detected by the Developers Italia crawler in order to generate the relative data sheet in the catalogue. Documentation on the format can be found here: https://github.com/italia/publiccode.yml. Adding the code hosting tool to the search engine. In order to ensure that Developers Italia correctly identify the repository as belonging to the public administration, the code hosting tool (or rather, the ‘organisation’ within the same) must be registered the first time it is used, associating it with the public administration. The procedure to be followed is detailed here: https://onboarding.developers.italia.it ...