[PLUG] The house bill, a possible problem...
Ken Barber
mountainman at peak.org
Sat Aug 23 20:47:02 UTC 2003
On Saturday 23 August 2003 12:43, Michael C. Robinson wrote:
> The arguments for this bill need to address the job
> displacement issue. Why is open source better than closed, and
> don't argue savings.
You'll never get an open source bill passed in a Republican
legislature without arguing savings. It all has to do with
something we call "spin."
Gripe all you want, but nothing in the political arena ever gets
done without spin, and Barnhart and I both knew from the outset
that the only way an open source bill would get any traction at
all would be to "spin" it as a money-saving measure.
We on this list know all kinds of logical, sensible and rational
reasons why Governments should use software that employs open
standards, but none of those arguments work in the political
arena. To get an idea passed, you must frame it in a way that
gets the attention of the people in power -- i.e., present it in
a way that appeals to their ideology.
Since Republicans control the House this session, that meant
selling the bill as a way to save the taxpayers money. Had
Democrats been in control we would have chosen a different spin.
> Nobody wants to be accused of destroying jobs.
That's why we kept very, VERY quiet about this consequence of the
bill. I expected our opposition to figure it out and hammer us
with it, but they are so blinded by their own FUD (M$-funded
studies claiming that FOSS has a higher TCO) that they never even
thought of it.
Call me evil if you want, but the unfortunate reality is that THIS
is how politics works.
Ken
--
"The big innovation of [Windows] XP is that it has a back door
that sucks out all your proprietary information and presents it
to Microsoft to sell it back to you or any retailer. That's the
big innovation in XP - a back door. By the way, it still runs
all your favorite viruses."
-- Scott McNealy, CEO of Sun Microsystems
More information about the PLUG
mailing list