Texas Bill Would Require Open Source Consideration 221
Skapare writes "The Texas Legislature now has before it a bill ( ASCII text here, PDF here), submitted by State Senator John Carona, to require the state to consider open source and open standards as part of the acquisition of software. Texas, like many other states, has a budget crisis going on. If this passes, I believe it could help the state save a lot of money. Texans need to make sure their state representatives and senators know they want this to pass."
But it doesn't say how hard they must consider it (Score:4, Funny)
like the DMCA case (Score:1)
The Texas Legislature (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The Texas Legislature likes this... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:The Texas Legislature likes this... (Score:3, Funny)
You left out the Jalapeno Peppers. You want this taken care of asap don't you?
Re:The Texas Legislature (Score:3, Interesting)
Not sure if I missed something, but it seems like they meet a lot more than once every two years. Heck, they meet Monday! Odds are pretty good that Monday's not the once-in-two-years day, eh?
Re:The Texas Legislature (Score:1)
This should get international attention.
I give it 70-30 chance to pass this session.
Re:The Texas Legislature (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The Texas Legislature (Score:2, Funny)
Re:The Texas Legislature (Score:1)
Deja Vu! (Score:3, Funny)
OK, just being sarcastic, let's hope we see 50 or so more of these..
Re:Deja Vu! (Score:1)
Boy, you ain't from around here, is you?
Re:Deja Vu! (Score:1)
So that would be... one for each of the 52 states?
Re:Deja Vu! (Score:2)
Re:Deja Vu! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Deja Vu! (Score:2)
This is a little-known period in US history and well worth studying. However, I would have a hard time believing that Mexico had a claim to any of the land that is now Wyoming, Kansas, or even
It could save a lot of money (Score:5, Insightful)
Still, I'm going to call my people in Austin to support it.
Re:It could save a lot of money (Score:1)
Re:It could save a lot of money (Score:4, Insightful)
And if you're going to invest in training, it's better to invest in something that's always available, rather than something you might not have the money to own next year, or which might be taken away through forced upgrades or discontinued support.
Re: Money is the reason all right... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It could save a lot of money (Score:4, Insightful)
As does sticking with a commercial vendor who likes you to "update" according to their schedule.
It will save Texas more money... (Score:5, Funny)
What is the current policy? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What is the current policy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? It just says that they have to be considered, not that they have to be used. Requiring consideration is very different from requiring usage.
Requiring usage would be anti-competitive, but requiring consideration is pro-competition. Unfortunately, requisitions are always written so that only the program they want will work, so even if you consider using a competitor, it won't fit all the requirements for the requisition.
Re:What is the current policy? (Score:1)
Exactly... to have more control over your own dest (Score:5, Informative)
Half a decade ago we embarked on acquiring only "vendor-supported turnkey software apps" and ditched our in-house written systems (mostly old mainframe stuff) because it was perceived to be more cost-saving route, rather than having to keep our own expensive tech staff on payroll. What we've actually learned over the years is that "vendor-supported turnkey apps" is a farce. The vendors corrall and herd you into a corner where they want you, the support prices skyrocket overnight while the quality of tech support plummets. They force you onto a never-ending upgrade gravy-train which only benefits their bottom line. They do not keep knowledgeable support staff because that is a cost center to them, you get to wait on hold forever only to get to talk to a bubblegum-smacking teenager with a condescending attitude who barely can parrot back the owner's manual to you and cannot solve any real technical problems.
In the end, running complex computer systems costs a lot of money, whether you pay thru the nose for "vendor supported turnkey apps" or keep your own staff of technical experts it eventually costs the same in the long run. When you do the latter, you are in much more control of your own destiny, you upgrade if-and-when you decide, not when the vendor decides. You can customize the system to fit your own internal business needs.
I am using open source software everywhere I possibly can in my organization. We're feeling the budget crunch too, and the purchase cost savings of open source is definitely popular with my managers, though they are concerned with "who will support it", well the answer is the same people who would be supporting the "vendor-supported turnkey apps" --- the city's own I.S. staff, because whoever the commercial software's "owner-of-the-day" (the companies are constantly getting bought out by other companies) is generally incompetant anymore.
Re:Exactly... to have more control over your own d (Score:2)
Especially if you have the senario where your
Re:What is the current policy? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's an awfully broad statement - any vendor selection process that starts from the vendor's perspective is doomed to budget bloat and ultimate dissatisfaction. What is really needed is not a mandate that such-and-such software is considered, but more of a mandate that governments (just like businesses) need qualified systems analysts to drive these decisions. What's often lacking in government is the combination of technical and business expertise to make the proper match between requirements and technology.
Re:What is the current policy? (Score:2)
I'd say they need not only qualified system analysis, but qualified *unbiased* system analysis, which is an even harder problem.
There would also ideally be bans on the kind of relationships that existed in places like the Oracle/California debacle, where the analyst has a relationship with the vendor whose software is a candidate for recommendation. Of course, the logistics of how to "ban" something like this would be pretty hairy...
Multi-vendor solution (Score:2)
It's a lamentable fact of life that open projects do not have helpdesks, but third parties can provide the necessary support. What I would want to see in any bill of this sort is an acknowledgement of this state of affairs, and
Re:What is the current policy? (Score:3, Interesting)
This is little different than requiring employees to purchase the cheapest availble airfare, or limit them to midsize car rental while traveling. The low-cost option should be the default option, unless the need to spend more is demonstrated.
Is that anticompetitive? I'm sure MS would say it is, but then the Four Seasons could balk at govt. employ
Re:What is the current policy? (Score:2)
Re:What is the current policy? (Score:2)
But what about IIS? Haven't you wondered WHY people are using it when Apache is the market leader, free, and has a better security record? I think sometimes in govt. there's no incentive to avoid wasting money unless there's a rule that says you should.
Re:What is the current policy? (Score:2)
That would hold true except that there is a difference with PUBLIC bidding procedures.
The problem stated above could change of course, if an enterprising soul said "I can make exactly what you want for $1.00 less than MS!! You gotta choose me!", either by customizing something already free or rolling a new product And with state contracts, you mostly gotta take the lowest bidder. Al
Re:What is the current policy? (Score:3, Interesting)
For example lets say Texas requires that all software be purchased from companies that pay Texas sales tax. Can they use Apache?
Re:What is the current policy? (Score:2)
Besides, everyone will pay their state's sales tax [washingtonpost.com] before long!
Non-USians: none of this applies to you. Or maybe not.
Bottom line: open-source is probably not going to be disqualified by any state's acquision law, even the loopholey "gimme-my-kickback" kind.
No, I think that the battle lies in the hearts, minds, and committee-meeting agendas of acquisition and technical
Re:What is the current policy? (Score:2)
Re:What is the current policy? (Score:2)
Often states and state agencies have regulations and legislation which require all sorts of properties from various "bidders" on contracts.
What contract? Not applicable. Govt IT employee downloads, configures, and installs. The only way that doesn't happen is if IT employee's PHB decides that you have to buy software. Hence, my comments about the hearts (not applicable in the case PHBs), minds (also not applicable), and meeting agendas (right on point).
And the scenario can be played ou
Re:What is the current policy? (Score:2)
You haven't worked with government much have you? Imagine the difference in freedom between being IS for a small business vs. a large corporation. That's the same difference as between large corporation and government. Government employees don't install anything (in general there are exceptions). The employees are generally responsible for vendor management and designing the criteria for the RFP/RFQ (though often they
Re:What is the current policy? (Score:3, Informative)
I'm lead engineer for a U.S. Air Force developmental and contracting facility. (I think it qualifies as "government".) I get to install damn near whatever I want in the lab. Most of my demonstrations become product
Re:What is the current policy? (Score:2)
Is there something in the current policy that would prevent open source from being considered?
Open source projects do not tend to be represented by salespeople.
Re:What is the current policy? (Score:2)
With a sales guy, you can usually find out and relay word back. Here you have public record that you can mine for either injustice or legitimate ways to improve the features and acceptance of OSS.
As I think is your point, genuinly this is a good thing for OSS. It just makes things even, and encourages openness.
---------
Re:What is the current policy? (Score:2)
Re:What is the current policy? (Score:2)
This is way too much of an oversimplification. For many applications, mainframes often lose out rather badly to Unix systems for databases. Your cost and flexibility with Unix systems
Re:What is the current policy? (Score:2)
In quite a few cases the best tool for the job might be a terminal either text or graphics. I've seen quite a few situations where Windo
Re:What is the current policy? (Score:2)
Re:What is the current policy? (Score:2)
Re:What is the current policy? (Score:2)
(Someone from Harvard would explain it far better than I, but here goes anyway;-)
The real reason for OSS in government is that government records, and by extension the records of and about its citizens, cannot be held hostage to the whims or (mis)fortunes of any private company (or organization). Your actual rights depend as much or more on the way governments keep records as on the laws which have been enacted.
Re:What is the current policy? (Score:2)
Good moding and question. I think the primary difference is that OSS isn't 'a' company, nor is it perceived that way. It means different things to different people. To bean counters it means free as in beer. To politicians, it means they can spend the money on something else (they would never just spend less). To the management of the agencies, it means "getting that new software everyone is talking about." To the end use
Re:What is the current policy? (Score:2)
Yes, but only because they're a harmful monpooly. As great as the free market theories are, in practice once the market has been poisoned by a monopoly then corrective action is needed. That's what this bill does. This bill addresses the fact that the IT industry is in dire straights (mainly because of Microsoft) and is forcing competition through legislation.
It does more than that. It addresses "open standards" so as not
Re:What is the current policy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you think public forms and documents should be distributed using proprietary formats, thereby compelling taxpayers who expect to benefit from their existence to aquire the same proprietary software? Do you see any irony in using proprietary software to manage the affairs of public institutions? (hint: proprietary is the opposite of public)
Of course we would rail against a bill requiring MS products to be considered! But this is not a apples to apples comparison. Apple to Microsoft might be (less so lately). OSS/Free Software to Microsoft is not.
Re:What is the current policy? (Score:2)
I dont want to pay tax to the local government so that they can buy microsoft (or any other vendor) software based on "the mayor plays golf with one of their execs" or "senator whoever owns shares in them"
I have no problem what the government uses, so
I will be visiting Texas... (Score:1)
I'll see to it that this bill gets the suport it deservs. I'll loby, I'll march, I'll recrute people to work the phones and go house to house.
Hmm... Maybe not.
I don't get it (Score:2, Flamebait)
Why is this required? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Why is this required? (Score:2, Informative)
No, there are no rules against selecting open source solutions. Open source has always been an option, and the "best value" business is typical of government contract requirements. Maybe there's a few evaluators that never "considered" open source; maybe they'll even do more than "consider" it for five minutes after this bill is passed. But it's unlikely to actually change anything.
All of which is why the bill is nothing more than a bit of grandstanding on the part of the sponsors. They can get a vocal
Re:Why is this required? (Score:1)
Re:Why is this required? (Score:5, Interesting)
But it probably isn't. There are a lot of examples of only "commercial" offering being considered.
Something I've seen on a number of web projects is a concerted effort to judge which web server to buy. While they're putting out a lot of effort installing and testing demo versions of commercial servers, I'll walk over to an idle machine, download apache, untar and compile it, and have a demo running in 15 or 20 minutes.
Usually the reaction to this is exasperation. Apache wasn't in the list of competitors, and wasn't to be tested. After all, it doesn't have a price, y'know, and there isn't an Apache Inc to buy it from, so how could they ever compare it with the other servers? The rules are to consider competitive bids, and apache didn't make a bid, so they don't have to consider it.
But in each case, the developers went with my apache server, because it was up and running. The management found they had serious opposition on their hands when they tried to get people to switch to the commercial server that they chose. The developers wanted something that worked, and had little patience for an expensive server that needed a constant babysitter.
In all seriousness, this is how things get done in many organizations. Few managers anywhere want to decrease their budget by using something that's free. It doesn't matter whether it's government or business or industry or whatever; there's a strong prediliction among managers to simply not see "free" things.
Re:Why is this required? (Score:2)
We might note that this isn't exactly a new idea. IBM has historically made money from selling hardware, yes, but they also make billions selling support contracts. Their approach for decades has been to sell or give away the software, and charge customers for support.
It may be true that the Open Source crowd has good, free online consulting help
Just think (Score:1, Flamebait)
Linus Torvalds and Alan Cox could become the de facto pioneers of a whole slew of software designed to speed the execution of retarded prisoners.
It's funny (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder if Open Source could contribute to an economic comeback in any way.
Re:It's funny (Score:3, Funny)
Gee I wonder... what powered that whole "Internet" craze? Sure as hell wasn't Windows 3.1.
If OSS had a ticker symbol, I'd buy in a heartbeat.
Re:It's funny (Score:2)
"He who lives by the crystal ball shall learn to enjoy ground glass".
In a word, yes. For how and why, take a close look at IBM. Don't confuse free with cheap. Microsoft makes a glitzy facade with no real substance behind it. The required real substance is expensive. Very expensive. Large business systems that must interoperate reliably, with no funny business going on in dark corners. The future isn't B2B, it's B2B2B...2B with a fe
Open standards most important (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't mind them picking any closed source solution so long as it has sufficant functionality and guarenties so that they know it will work right. However I do have a problem with ANY solution that is not open standard based. microsoft doc format works okay, but it limits your ability to choose a compititor. In effect your next bid for who supplies word processors either has to have perfect microsoft compatability, or you need to account for a team to open every current document and save it in a standard that the new program can read.
By contrast if they require an open standard as default, today they can use Word, and tommorow switch to wordPerfect, and next year Staroffice might win the bid for who supplies word processing software. Even better than can be a mixture. Most people would be served just fine with kword or openoffice, but a few people need as use those features in microsft word that isn't provided in the alternatives. With a standard file format you mix and match as you wish. Today you can already provide Photoshop to those who really need the best, and Gimp to everyone, since picture formats are open. Word processing formats should be too.
Even though I mentioned file formats above, that isn't the only place where open standards are better. At walMart I can buy several different memory card readers. Some support 3 different formats, some 5, and some 6! If you happen to buy the 6 port version you can read most formats today, but not all. By contrast there is already a good open standard memory card interface: USB, and every new comptuer has it so there is no need to buy any adaptor. (Some of the memory cards read by the reader might be considered open, but they are not everywhere so it is hard to call them standard. This should be a considereation too)
Can't be said often enough! (Score:1)
My mixture of cynicism and optimism varies by the day, but simply getting the idea across to people there for any given task they do in life, there are (or should be) other ways to do it is the most important thing here. Inertia is probably just as strong a force as hor
Re:MS can solve your problem there too. (Score:1)
I get people all the time who want me to support their Win 95/98/NT/2k/XP boxes, and the weird thing is this: Why is it that less than 10% of them even know of WordPad's existence? Those who *do* know of it seem to use Word anyhow, for various reasons:
"It's fancier"
"There's an icon for it right there"
"It came with it, so I mig
Re:MS can solve your problem there too. (Score:2)
Compare it to a car battery, sure you get one when you buy a car, but its not free, its part of the cost, and if you want one seperately you have to pay.
Only you cant get wordpad seperately.
Re:How will WordPad help? (Score:2)
Also it would be hard to find hardware to run it on, not all modern hardware still has drivers for 95, and if you planned to network it atall you wouldnt get any security updates for the various holes that are still being found.
And ofcourse consider the amount of stress caused to users by the ins
Please also mention HB1899 (Score:2, Offtopic)
A similar bill has already been passed in California. This bill could have helped to prevent my daughter's abduction to Mexico. She has been missing since last April. FindSabrina.org [findsabrina.org] for details.
Let me tell you, your definition of "stuff that matters" changes when your child has been abducted.
Holy Shit (Score:1)
Interestingly enough (Score:3, Informative)
[slightly OT] I wonder how US and State Gov't entities reconcile themselves with their own laws and decrees WRT OS-level stong encryption in such a scenario?
How? (Score:2)
Re:How? (Score:2)
Well, they won't have to pay licensing costs but it'll all even out as they have to train employees to use crap (to-the-user) alternatives to the software they had a year ago.
Re:How? (Score:2)
Modularity (Score:5, Insightful)
When companies or government departments implement a large software system, they very often get the entire thing done by a single vendor. Very rarely are the projects split up into modules with clearly defined interfaces that can be written by the lowest bidder (taking quality into consideration).
Sure, there may be interoperability problems, but if the interfaces are defined strictly enough then you know exactly who to blame. Open or closed source can be chosen for each module depending on suitability. This excludes the operating system, of course, as it must be entirely open or closed source.
Who's that? (Score:2)
A big problem using any open source software (Score:1)
I recently set up an old maid aunt with a machine that came with Word Perfect. She is as newbie as they come but after 2 weeks she called and demanded Microsoft Word because 'she could buy a book about it'.
Re:A big problem using any open source software (Score:1)
gimp [barnesandnoble.com]
staroffice [barnesandnoble.com]
Forcing it? (Score:2, Insightful)
It IS different (Score:1, Informative)
Re:It IS different (Score:2, Interesting)
Giving preference to software with "certain licensing terms" is under-handed, and it's intended result is clear and not as muddied as you think.
And I wouldn't use the words "legislate" and "reasonable" so freely together. I mean, we ARE in Texas.
tx.us are using Apache (Score:5, Interesting)
What is your state running? [netcraft.com]
The site www.capitol.state.tx.us is running IBM_HTTP_SERVER/1.3.19.2 Apache/1.3.20 (Unix) on unknown
Re:tx.us are using Apache (Score:2)
Re:tx.us are using Apache (Score:2)
Re:That makes one. (Score:2)
This actually makes the point that TX could save by changing. I can think of no reason Dept. of Human services needs IIS and not Apache.
Like Enviro Impact? (Score:3, Insightful)
BUT... I also see huge potential for this to be abused. Depending on how a policy like this is implemented, they could require "software impact statements" akin to Environmental Impact Statements. A great idea, but in practice not so great... too many special interests use lawsuits over those impact statements to tie up companies or federal agencies in the courts for years, making the end result more costly than simply giving up. I don't want to argue about whether some of those lawsuits are necessary, but I do claim that there is too much abuse. And I could easily see commercial vs. open source software being suckered into the same sort of dispute.
Imagine: Texas Department of ABC decides to use open source for gizmo X. Microsoft sues Texas for being "incomplete" with their evaluation of the software; i.e. they didn't consider MS kinda-open-source initiative Z that they really should have under the law. Dept. of ABC can pay millions fighting the lawsuit to use free software, or back down and pay hundreds of thousands for licenses to MS software; and MS would coincientally drop the suit if that happened...
Maybe I'm being paranoid, but I see a LOT of potential for abuse here. Particularly if some special interests decide they can't stop the bill cold and instead decide to cripple it - and open the door for exactly what I laid out above. Do you trust the Texas legislature to be resistant enough to corporate money to actually get it right the first time?
Good idea on paper but.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Good idea on paper but.... (Score:2)
That's probably why a law is needed to force these dinosaurs to look at saving money.
I deal with things like this every day and there's nothing that can be done about it.
Hopefully a law like this will help. If you just blindly pick a proprietary product you'd be breaking the law and hopefully diciplined/fired. It's unfortunate that state employees wouldn't care about saving people money.
I know you're just trolling.... (Score:2)
Zingers in the proposed bill (Score:5, Interesting)
"For all new software acquisitions, a state agency shall avoid the acquisition of products that are known to make unauthorized transfers of information to, or permit unauthorized control of or modification to the state government's computer systems by, parties outside the control of the state government."
If memory serves me, Microsoft's click-wrap licenses, and the Windows XP activation process, and their auto-update processes, do EXACTLY that sort of thing.
Also note that the bill's definition of "open source software" requires "(E) freedom to make and distribute copies of the software; and (F) freedom to modify the software and to distribute the modified software under the same license as the original software."
This would seem to exclude Microsoft's "Shared Source" hogwash.
Except that... (Score:2)
It's Microsoft's "Intellectual Property", they can make whatever changes they want (Texas edition or Government edition) to comply.
On the other hand, they'd hopefully need to "prove their innocence".
'unauthorized' (Score:2)
BTW, this one has always bugged me. I know some companies will hire consultants to come in and install new systems or do upgrades. When a consultant comes in a 'click click click's his way through license agreements, and the company hiring him doesn't know what's going on, can the h
While you are at it... (Score:2)
If you live in Texas or Oregon, please take the time next week to make one phone call or write one letter. It will matter.
Bills like this get OSS into the process which is very important. We need to be part of things in order for greater success later. And the states who are forward thinking enough will get to save some money and possibly build their development communities at the same time.
T
Help out Kansas (Score:2)
However, I am awake enough to know that Kansas, which is a state also in a budget crunch, needs to save some money. Also, considering Kansas was one of the hold out states in the MS settlement, she should be very pro OSS. Anyhoo, with midterms last week, I missed a lot of the news about Oregon (?) passing such a bill and other stuff like that.
So, if someone would be so kind to help kind of round up to sources, that would rock. A copy of this bill, t
Keeping govt money local (Score:5, Interesting)
OpenOffice is a good example. While it's not a perfect replacement for MSOffice, in some organizations, it can serve reasonably well. Let's say a dept of 40 people will be upgrading from Office 97 to Office XP @ $100/seat. That's $4000. Migrating to OpenOffice for those 40 people may require days of retraining, but in reality there'd be some retraining (formal or informal) for some of those people anyway even moving to Office XP.
So, migrating from Office 97 to anything else will require *some* training. You can have more formalized training, and pay someone local to come in, or shift the bulk of that money out of the region, yet still have to provide training for some of the staff (perhaps during lunch breaks, or overtime, or whatever).
That example isn't perfect, I know, but the local services factor *needs* to be played up. Money isn't a zero-sum - it floats around in transactions. The more of those transactions a state can keep to itself, the better.
Texas sucks. (Score:2, Funny)
I hate working in Texas - what a backwards place.
Texas Bill (Score:2)
Re:Be a cynocrat! (Score:1)
Re:Delusional (Score:2)
then of course their is the red herring of "re-training". this is crap. i am a school teacher, and am involved in
Re:Delusional (Score:2)