Sul sito dell’OSOR.EU Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz ha illustrato il caso italiano segnalato su EUPL.IT, avente ad oggetto un disciplinare di gara emanato da SardegnaIT per un appalto di fornitura di software in ASP.
Nell’ambito di tale appalto, la valutazione dell’offerta tecnica contemplava l’attribuzione di apposito punteggio, ancoché esiguo, in caso di presentazione di software sotto licenza EUPL.
Veniva prevista, invece, l’attribuzione di un punteggio leggermente inferiore qualora la soluzione tecnica proposta fosse diversa dall’EUPL, ma consentisse comunque di attuare le strategie di riuso del software.
Ecco il commento di P.E. Schmitz (“A case study on fai procurement for FLOSS in Italy“ , che riporto di seguito:
The Region specifications state that all received proposals (proprietary or open source) will be evaluated technically and economically as follows:
Technical Evaluation Points A Quality and maturity of the proposed solution 20 B Functional compliance with the needs 35 C Quality and capacity of the service provider 10 D Compatibility with the operating environment 10 E Provision of a “re-usable” solution (1) 3 F Provision of an “EUPL compatible” open source solution (2) + 2 Economical Evaluation . G Delivery price 14 H Yearly maintenance cost 3 I Daily prices for “on request” support services 3 Total of points 100
(1) the solution is “reusable” when its licence authorizes all other local administrations in Italy to implement and use it.
(2) the solution is “open source” when its licensing conditions comply with the European Union Public Licence (EUPL) taken as reference. “+2” means that two points are added to the three points obtained for a “reusable” solution: open source solutions are always reusable.
The two technical parameters A and B (perceived quality and functional compliance, 55% in total) receive priority, which is normal.
Parameters C and D (technical capacity and compatibility with the existing environment, 20% in total) may provide some advantages to well established vendors (including proprietary software providers, especially if the existing environment is proprietary).
On the other hand, parameters E, F, G, H (22% in total) should advantage an open source solution, the open solution providers or integrators.
An advantage of 5% (for providing a solution that the administration could distribute under the EUPL or which is compliant with the EUPL requirements) may look minimal, but it may also be decisive when the technical and economical aspects of two proposed solutions are comparable. The formal reference to the EUPL is not exclusive (evaluators could accept other OSI approved licences with similar characteristics). However, the uniqueness of the EUPL (which has official value in Italian and complies with the European Union law) is a strong incentive to use this licence.
This case was kindly submitted to OSOR by professore Fabio Bravo. See the comments of professore Bravo on: www.eupl.it (in Italian)
Specifications of the Region Sardinia (DISCIPLINARE DI GARA – in Italian)
The EUPL (in all EU languages)
Ringrazio ancora Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz e l’OSOR.EU per l’attenzione posta al monitoraggio che EUPL.IT sta conducendo e colgo l’occasione per chiedere alle P.A. italiane di volermi segnalare le best practice poste in essere.