[PLUG] Re: Oregon Open Source Bill Introduced

[Cooper Stevenson]

On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 14:50, collver1 at attbi.com wrote:
> >From your reply I get the feeling you are targetting Microsoft.  You cite
> upcoming Microsoft licensing changes, but this money grabbing is not a new
> tactic.  For example, Microsoft eliminated concurrent licensing for
> Microsoft Office in 1997.  This is Microsoft's problem, not Oregon's
> problem.

It _is_ Oregon's problem, because we have to pay for it. We not only
with taxpayer money but also with _every_ good and service that we
consume as the costs to the manufacturer/service provider are passed to
the consumer.

> 
> You described two other problems: 1) IT managers wastefully focussing on
> job security, and 2) Microsoft bullying.  This bill obviously does not
> address problem 1, 

This bill is the first step toward promoting fair procurement processes.
In terms of problem one, history tells us that IT managers will often
choose what is easiest, even if they know a better solution exists. This
will force public sector IT employees to justify why they chose the
solution that they have. While it's true it does not directly address
problem number one, it does indirectly require them to think more about
the technology in terms of what is better and less expensive for their
employers/customers, and less about what is easiest for them.

but I see the relevance to problem 2.  If you force
> the Oregon state government to consider open source software at every IT
> decision, it makes it more difficult for Microsoft to single out individual
> organizations.  Is this the purpose of the bill?

I cannot speak to the intentions of the bill's author, but I can tell
you that it is definitely a potential benefit.

The state will now have the power to say, "hey, proprietary vendor,
that's the law!" By inference, if the proprietary vendor does not wish
to play ball nicely, then it is certainly justified for an IT manager to
write in his/her report, "we felt a very real threat from proprietary
vendor X that they intend to enforce strict licensing guidelines against
our software. Staying in compliance of these terms may be outside the
limits of our resources to track and pay for these licencing
requirements. We have no reason at this time to suspect that this
situation will change in the future."

> 
> AFAIK there is no bill requiring the Oregon government to consider
> proprietary software.  Granted this bill does not tell people how to
> perform their jobs, but it makes me uneasy to see Oregon law used to
> advertise open source software.  

I agree to a certain extent. What you may not know is that lobbyists
from Redmond are pouring _millions_ into the pockets of some
legislators' re-election funds across the country to help, "ensure that
software used by the public sector is of the highest technical and
functional standard." 

Do the math.

The boom times are over. Constituents in each district are taking a real
hard look at where the money is going. This is a good thing.

If Linux has such dramatic potential to
> reduce costs as you claim, it should "sell" based on its own merits.

History will tell you, young man, that it is simply not always the case.
The death of the Macintosh is an excellent example. On the business
side, I encourage you to look at the Anti-trust cases of Standard Oil
and Carnege Steel, Microsoft, and others.

This you may not know:

Bill Gates grew up in the upper-crust suburban Seattle in the 1960's.
His father, William Gates Jr., was one of Seattle's most prominent
lawyers and an active player in the political arena in Washington State.
Senators, congressmen, and governors came to dinner at the family's
house when Bill was a boy.

It was actually Bill's mother, Mary, who pointed a friendly IBM
executive to her son's fledgling software company, Microsoft.

Is William Gates III an intelligent and intense individual? Certainly.
Does he have a ferocious competitive appetite? Again, certainly.

Did he have a little help? I'd say that's a fair statement to say the
least.

I wish it really were a "may the best man win" business, but the truth
is that the technology sector is a rough, 'take-no-prisoners' arena
where you take every advantage that you can get. For some, even if said
advantage is illegal.


-Cooper