"Software Choice" Campaigns Against Open Source 410
Verizon Guy writes: "News.com is reporting that a group called The Initiative for Software Choice, led by the CompTIA, but backed primarily by Microsoft and Intel, is lobbying against Open Source-only laws in for example, the State of California government and the government of Peru. While their goals don't specifically mention open source, they do mention that publicly-funded research should steer clear of licenses such as the GPL. Interesting read."
US Government Copyrights (Score:5, Informative)
So I'm not sure that these companies don't have a point. I would think this indicates that the government cannot extend GPL code, as the GPL is based on copyright (er, copyleft). Granted, I have but a limited understanding of Copyright Law and the legal basis behind the GPL. I would like to see this issue explained, however.
I would think that any changes the US Government (or its agencies) made to GPL code would have to fall into the Public Domain. By the same token, if the NSA were to make an UltraSecure Windows OS, then their modifications would not be assignable (as US Government works do not enjoy copyright protection) to Microsoft and would also fall into the Public Domain (just their diffs, not the whole work).
Obviously, US Code Section 17 Chapter 1 Section 105 does not preclude the government from merely using Open Source (or any form of software, for that matter) without extending it.
Cheers,
Slak
Re:They get to use a .org? (Score:1, Informative)
.org is not TLD for "non-commercial organizations". It's a TLD for "anyone who isn't a .company or a .networkoperator."
Bruce Perens has a good reply to this (Score:1, Informative)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/26616.ht
Places where open-source-only *may* be appropriate (Score:3, Informative)
The problem comes when government at any level distributes information in any electronic form. At that point, the issue isn't really Open Source as much as it is Open Formats and Interchange. For a large part, and IMHO Microsoft is one of the greatest offenders, proprietary software tends to entrench itself with proprietary formats.
As I view government information available in electronic form, I want the freedom to choose what software to us. If the government publishes in proprietary formats, they have abridged my freedom of choice. In fact, in doing this they meddle in the market, granting certain companies competitive advantages over others, based on their software choice.
Sticking with Open Formats and Interchange is the only way that the government can avoid forcing choices on citizens. It's the only way they can avoid reducing competition in the marketplace.
If Microsoft (and other similar software makers) could avoid their desire for proprietary formats, this wouldn't be an issue.
An Open Source law for government misses the issue, completely. Even so, it may well accomplish the correct end. Still, it would be better to be on target.
Hm. (Score:1, Informative)
Eh.
First of all, this is not about freedom of choice. This is about what kind of software is suitable for use in government institutions. The comments by the Peruvian senator in response to Microsoft's criticism of proposed laws mandating use of free software in publically-funded organisations apply equally here.
Oh yeah, and we all know how much MS love making improvements to their software available for use in proprietary products (uh, or for that matter, in anybody's products whatsoever)...
Right, but proprietary software companies are really very poor at creating open standards and adhering to them. This coming from the company that changes their Word file formats every month, patents their protocols and refuses to let their most viable competitors use it (see their recent CIFS license, which prohibits use of the *protocols* from within GPL/LGPLed programs -- unless I really badly misread something, anyway. Note for trolls: Don't even start to argue that this is what the GPL does. You might not be able to use their code, but they're not stopping you from making a competing client or server to use the same protocols), attempted to close up and commercialise the Internet via the Microsoft Network (they failed, but that's not the point), and even explicitly stated in their Halloween documents their desire to "de-commoditise open protocols.
They have, admittedly, done some work to create open protocols and formats, XML and SOAP being among them. Shining work, but it doesn't make up for the damage they have done and are trying to do.
I also disagree with the notion that open source doesn't necessarily mean open standards and open formats. It's impossible to create a closed, proprietary format or protocol with free software. if you didn't document your protocol or file format someone would just look at the source, and document it themselves.
Ahh, I guess I'm imagining Red Hat, Mandrake, SuSE, Caldera (evil, btw), etc etc...
(Another interesting point: didn't Microsoft state their desire to "warn legislators" of the "dangers" of copyleft licenses earlier this year (or last year, or something?)? They're playing the same game.)
Aren't openness and independence from individual vendors `merits'? Or did I miss the part when the legislators said "we want these laws because...hell, we just feel like it! Why not?"
The money not wasted by the government on Microsoft licenses (they just got more expensive, too! One would think it that was a pretty bad move to make in a market where their most viable competitor can be downloaded free of charge or bought for $5 from CheapBytes...) more than makes up for any money that is not spent in taxes.
Consider this: government spends $14,000 on Microsoft licenses for a particular office. Say they were taxed 20% on that (they wouldn't be, just picking a high figure for argument's sake). That's $2,800 taken in taxes (some of that would be wasted on bureaucracy, so not all of that would go back to the public), which is a loss of $11,200 to the taxpayer. Compare that to, say, installing Red Hat. $0. $14,000 saved by the taxpayer. Or perhaps $13,900 if they didn't feel like burning the CDs themselves.
...
I was going to form these points into a coherent post, but I can't be bothered now.
Disclaimer: posted via the non-free Internet Explorer (I'm at work, and missing Links. ;/ )
You don't understand (Score:1, Informative)
Microsoft could sell MS products down there, but they would have to supply the source. They wouldn't even have to allow Peruvian officials to distribute (specifically they could disallow Peruvian officials from distributing the source). The law just mandates that they have the source for auditing purposes.
This would be no less proprietary than it is now. It would be no less MS quality.
The market would still dictate the best product (in Peru), but MS would have to play by the rules.
Shoehorning the wrong tool (Score:4, Informative)
The transcription department at the hospital my mother works at transferred everyone over to MS Word a couple years ago, from DOS-based Word Perfect. The reason given was to 'increase productivity'. Well, it only helps the IT productivity, because it's less for them to 'learn' (never mind that they rarely actually help solve a problem anyway, that's another story).
The point is hundreds of people were trained and very productive in WordPerfect. They didn't WANT to switch to Office/Word, but were forced to. Productivity DROPPED like a rock. All the DOS-based tools (keymap-expanders - "alt-shift-gg" expands to "gyrointestinal gerontology", for example) don't exist for Word, and still haven't appeared on the market.
By pure line-count per hour based productivity, MANY people in the department fell at least 50%, some by as much as 80%, in terms of productivity.
This was and still is most definitely the 'wrong tool' for the job, but it's 'company policy' and everyone lives with it. Forcing people in a federal office building to learn OpenOffice after learning Word would be costly, yes, but it would fit the overarching IT vision, if it was articulated to demand open source stuff.
When the 'wrong tool' for the job is MS, people still seem to go along with it, but when the 'wrong tool' may be open source stuff, suddenly it can't happen?
Repeat Topic (Score:2, Informative)