[PLUG] AeA Awards Rep. Minnis

[D. Cooper Stevenson]

On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 17:03, plug.9.faster at spamgourmet.com wrote:

> I agree in theory, but...
> 
> > Packing the law books with more laws will not help open source (or
> > proprietary software).... It will just make me (a small business
> > owner) spend more and more money on attorneys in order to figure out
> > what the hell I'm supposed to do with the software I create and use.
> 
> The bill would not have affected small businesses. 

If you're a small business who pays taxes it would have. Moreover, it
would have helped spur the State's local economy by lessing the State's
software licensing costs and increasing it's use of local consulting
firms.

> It was about
> requiring state government offices to prove that they had considered
> software from sources other than the ones who took them out to lunch,
> bought them concert tickets, contributed to their boss' political
> campaigns, etc. 
> 

This turned out to be the case.

> > If the open source community wants to help the propogation of open 
> > source, then do 2 things:  1) write more CODE or work on code that
> > is being used and 2) work to REMOVE legislation that forces decision
> > makers to give unbalanced attention to special interest groups.
> 

Agreed. 

I would also submit that HB 282 and SB 941 were appropriate as 1) while
many open source products are superior to proprietary projects, they're
simply considered partly for the reasons you outlined above and partly
for fear of a loss of discount or software audit. On the "softer" side,
there's also a kind of religion in the server room for Microsoft
software. I used to think that it was limited to the Administrator level
and below, but I learned during the Legislative session that it goes
right up to the CIO level as well.

> In theory, this is the way it should work. In practice, it is almost
> impossible to get rid of old legislation except by passing new
> legislation that explicitly overrides the old.

While I'm not a legislative expert, this seems to ring true. 

> 
> And I don't think there's a lot of 'forcing' going on, just a lot of
> 'gentle persuading'. Mostly backed up by money, which isn't a big part
> of open source marketing.

I not sure what difference the level of "persuasion" makes. On thing is
for certain: Rep. Barnhart and other Representatives' offices have files
that are thick with letters of support for this bill by an overwheming
majority. However strong or light the "persuasion" was on the part of
the lobbyists, it was enough to override the will of the Oregon voter.

> 
> > If open source is the highest quality and the playing field is level,
> > then it will win.  (In fact, I think it'll win even if the playing
> > field isn't level -- I'm about 90% free of proprietary software
> > myself.)
> 

In the dynamics of a free market you're right.

The trouble is that we're facing a monopoly, not a free market. If you
think Microsoft is dominant now, think about what it would be like
without even a hint of the DOJ's anti-trust suit against the software
giant (weak remedies aside).

Even without a monopoly in the market, we're in fiscal budget problems
_now_. We're paying taxes monies to be shipped to Redmond Washington
that we don't have to _now_. If a better alternative is available at a
better value then buying expensive software anyway needs to stop _now_.

> I need a little more convincing that you personally are a representative
> model of state government software selection practices before I accept
> that the field doesn't need leveling.
> 

Please review just some of the documentation here:

  http://www.mwvlug.org/open_source_cd/index.htm

You may also find this interesting:

  http://www.oregonfollowthemoney.org/Press/jun1303.htm

I went through one of the BSA's licensing audits at a company I used to
work for. Technicians started disappearing after they levied a fine
against us, okay? I can also tell you that opposition to any "talk of
open source" definitely stiffened after the audit, alright?

Please note the "Single Vendor Issues" section. If you need more
documentation please feel free to contact me off-list; I would be happy
to provide you with all the written material you need to convince you
that the playing field is definitely not level and that these guys care
more about shareholder value than they do about client value.


Very Truly Yours,


Cooper Stevenson