Lobbyists Urge South Australia To Drop Open Source Bill

Red Wolf writes "The Age reports that South Australia has caused eyebrows at the Initiative for Software Choice (ISC) to be raised in concern, with the organisation writing to Premier Mike Rann over a proposed Open Source software bill. The ISC, by its own definition, is a "global coalition of large and small companies committed to advancing the concept that multiple competing software markets should be allowed to develop and flourish unimpeded by government preference or mandate"."

I wonder

how many of the lobbyists work for microsoft.

Re:I wonder

Whilst MS is probably a player in this, keep in mind that the South Australian State Government's IT is almost totally outsourced to EDS ( who are a ISC member, and a MS solution parter at a very big way ).

EDS's revenues in the SA State Government Cotnract would be impacted by an open source direction , as EDS derives revenue both from selling software and hardware to the government, as well as supporting the systems.

As EDS is a major sized player, one of the ways they derive revenue is by screwing commercial developers down on price, and then selling to their customers at as high a price they can get away with.

Extensive use of OSS/Free software would impact this because they would have reduced capability to pad their revenue.

Same old same old

The article doesn't detail the intricacies of the law so I'll just guess: government wants to make itself consider Open Source first before spending money on the propriety route.

Naturally, propriety software producers' lobying group sees their collective future sales go to hell and starts whining.

Next steps:
- Condemn the lobying group
- call on all local geeks to pressure the governement to accept the proposed ammendment.
- start an all out flamewar with the trolls on " the relative merrits of both types of software".

Now if somebody mods this up high enough fast enough, we can get this over with real soon... *grin*.

Nonetheless...

... I have to say that *my* opinion has been changed by the slashdot news items, and I think other peoples' may be too.

Normally, I like to choose the best software for the best application. However, the idea of public data is important.

The argument that convinced me was the pro-business alternatives that should be required: open data format, with full perpetual license to read and convert to other formats, should be acceptable for most purposes [not voting: The US demonstrates the flaws of closed-source vote tallying].

That said, I feel that even this requirement should stand only for the case of items of public record on computer. That is, you don't need MS Word to be open source/data format, if your only documents of record are on paper.

Now, people have had this flamewar going for who knows how long. But even flamewars can convince people. They moved me from "no regulation" to "encourage OSS".

After all, it is one person who decides which software to buy. But he's deciding for the property of others. Closed and open formats are not equal, therefore.

Re:Nonetheless...

While I'd agree entirely with your thesis (that it's the ability to access the data, rather than the application per se that's important), there's an additional interesting question arising... let's say that I'm a good little data archivist and store all my documents in an open format (say PDF) to mitigate the risk of my software vendor going out of business. Now, where do I store those PDFs? Are EMC, Hitachi or IBM SANs sufficiently open that I can get the data off them without using EMC/Hitachi/IBM software/firmware? What about the ArcServe or BackupExec storage formats?

Just a thought...

Future vs. Present oriented viewpoints Re:Same old

Both are right from their viewpoints, but the problem is that one is focussed on the present and one is focussed on the future. And, unfortunately, the Past, the last element of the trinity of time, (Past Present & Future) heavily influences the trajectory from the Present to the Future, i.e. the massive adoption of Windows and the talent developed around it.

Lobbyists want me to focus on the Present because there paychecks are from week to week, while Linux-Spirited want me to focus on the future because their spirit gets strokes from knowing that the world may be a better place a few years down in the Future. So, when you look at what impels the Closed Source and what impels the Open Source advocate, the motivational engines are different. And if the motivational engines are different, is this battle really about personalities ?

I have the full opportunity to design a small office for an Asian Sports Body. I love the idealism of OSS, and also KNOW that the future belongs to it if the world turns out the way it should, but may have to sign my office to a Windows shop. A request for help in making this choice last week on Slashdot got me some good responses along the same lines. Why ? Because in the PRESENT Windows Platform is big enough to probabilistically hold solutions to all the problems I am likely to come across, but in Linux the world is small enough that statistically I am sure to run into problems for which solutions don't exist.

Two different viewpoints - one by which I select Windows and a different one by which I reject Linux in the PRESENT. And I accept one probabilistically, and reject another statistically.

But I choose Windows over Linux only because I have to choose today, in the Present. If I could broaden my horizon for a year or two, then it is possible that the tradeoff I have designed for Win vs. Linx won't be so lop-sided. And hence, if I could broaden my horizons a better case can be made for Linux. Bottomline, in a narrow window of time I choose Windows or other "closed source" software, but in a broader window of time I choose Linux.

I like to look at this issue as if the battle been set and both the Closed and Open guys are playing their roles on the stage. These battles have to be fought, and who fights them is not that important. What people must do has been predecided by the role they have been cast in, which is based on their motivational engine, which is based on the orientation in time that they can afford to have.

Well, after all this Matrix-like discussion, I hate to come to a cliche conclusion, but, can we cut out these personal attacks, and hash out the real issues? But, again, what is reality ? Maybe it is the Matrix. Wait, does that mean Linus is Neo?

Re:Future vs. Present oriented viewpoints Re:Same

As I've stated in another reply under this subject: Strategy first, then tactics, then operational issues.

The benefits of OSS usually are more on a strategic level. If you can do without those benefits for now and the drawbacks won't keep you from enjoying those benefits a few years down the road, you're right. If not (read: stuck to propriety standards without a way to get out) then maybe you should think again about those 'benefits' you get from going with MS Windows right now.

Whatever you choose, please remember that if you think you've done everything to make the right choice, everbody proclaiming you are nuts to choose whatever you choose is wrong (and probably a troll). Good luck on your decission.

Key Open Dataformats Re:Future vs. Present

I agree that the key is Open Data formats.

Once sufficent people move to standard formats, and a good set of tools are available to visually manage the data in standard formats, (GUI with Win and Outlook like capabilities) - people will not notice when Windows is slipped from under them and replaced with another OS. The POWER of Windows is Just the GUI that it has created, and a lot of sunken investment of time in learning that GUI. Once the GUI become OUI (Object User Interface) or BUI (Bubble Use Interface) the Windows GUI paradigm will be replaced with something more powerful. And I can feel it in my guts that it is coming - it will almost be akin to a Graphical implementation of XML - really a graphical implementation not based on characters like it is currently.

Personally, I have tried to move to standard formats, and that is where I try to keep all my data.

• I like to keep everything in either txt files, or with some personal markup in an XML-like file, and finally html. Word is used only when I am about to print a document, or need to send someone something formatted - required in less that 10 % of the cases really.
• I use Excel to view and analyze the data, but try to keep it all in a standard format, i.e. txt, xml-like or html.
• I like to keep images in jpg. And I love to annotate images with Winpointer 2 - which saves the annotations in a almost-text file.
• If I put stuff in things like an Addressbook I make sure that I can dump the data out into a standard format.
• I try to use only the visual and sorting tools in Outlook for differnt categories, hierarchies, but otherwise make sure that all my data is also available in standard format. If Outlook were to disappear from the world tomorrow I would miss it, but would have nothing really "tied" into it.

Basically, If I could do my little bit in separating the Document from the View (which MS has tried to blur for the user), I believe I would be doing my bit for the OS software.

So, yes, you are right. Open Dataformats are the key.

Re:Same old same old

first before spending money on the propriety route

I don't think cost is the main issue. The point of open source in government is that if using closed source/closed standards, a private company, possibly foreign, has control over all your data. This is sinister, and not the sort of position any democratic body should put itself in. This is the main point of all the various similar bills being considered/implemented around the world ATM. It's not about free(beer) versus commercial software - it's about control of data.

Text of the proposed bill / legislation

''The article doesn't detail the intricacies of the law...''

No need to guess about the bill - here's the text of the proposed legislation. See the bold text for the important part:

[BIL148-A.LCA]

[Advance (1)]

South Australia

[Prepared by the Parliamentary Counsel on the instructions of the Hon. I. Gilfillan, M.L.C.]

STATE SUPPLY (PROCUREMENT OF SOFTWARE) AMENDMENT
BILL 2003

A BILL FOR
An Act to amend the State Supply Act 1985.

[OPC-LC]

Contents

Part 1â"Preliminary
1. Short title
2. Amendment provisions

Part 2â"Amendment of State Supply Act 1985
3. Insertion of Part 3A
Part 3Aâ"Special provisions relating to supply operations of public authorities
17A. Principle applying to the procurement of computer software

The Parliament of South Australia enacts as follows:

Part 1â"Preliminary

Short title
1. This Act may be cited as the State Supply (Procurement of Software) Amendment Act 2003.

Amendment provisions
2. In this Act, a provision under a heading referring to the amendment of a specified Act amends the Act so specified.

Part 2â"Amendment of State Supply Act 1985

Insertion of Part 3A
3. After Part 3 insert:

Part 3Aâ"Special provisions relating to supply operations of public authorities

Principle applying to the procurement of computer software
17A. (1) A public authority must, in making a decision about the procurement of computer software for its operations, have regard to the principle that, wherever practicable, a public authority should use open source software in preference to proprietary software.

(2) In this sectionâ"
"distribute" means distribute for free or on payment of the reasonable costs of distribution;
"open source software" means computer software the subject of a licence granting a person a rightâ"
(a) without any limitation or restriction, to use the software for any purpose; and
(b) without any limitation or restriction, to make copies of the software for any purpose; and
(c) without any limitation or restriction, to access or modify the source code of the software for any purpose; and
(d) without payment of a royalty or other fee, to distribute copies ofâ"
(i) the software (including as a component of an aggregate distribution containing computer software from several different sources); or
(ii) a derived or modified form of the software, (whether in compiled form or in the form of source code), under the same terms as the licence applying to the software;
"proprietary software" means computer software that is not open source software.

PRINTED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE GOVERNMENT PRINTER

its almost

seriously, as i read this all i could imagine was Gates himself sat in a huge leather chair dictating this word for work to Kramer his Be-atch.

Fingers steepled.... excellllleeeennntt

S

Initiative for Software Choice?

So, basically if I'm understanding this right, and correct me if I'm wrong, the Initiative for Software Choice is lobbying to basically remove South Australia's choice to use Open Source Software from consideration and more or less force them into using closed source software. Kind of ironic. Groups with names that don't support their actual agenda like this should really be openly chastised by major media outlets for being hypocritical to the point of just being ridiculous, if not just made flat out illegal. Think of it as a truth-in-advertising kind of thing. A company/group/whatever's name is their best form of advertising, it forms the base of their brand recognition. So if their name is so out of whack from their goals, it's kind of like misleading advertising.

Re:Initiative for Software Choice?

Whilst I haven't done any background checking on the Initiative for Software Choice I think what they seem to be saying is that the best tool for any particular job should be picked. In a case of government contracts I don't see why this should be a problem. Just because they're favouring one side now and it happens to be yours doesn't make it a better system - if the current bill was advising to try proprietary software before open source you'd think it was ridiculous so why isn't the reverse true?

Re:Initiative for Software Choice?

this Bill is a simple one, and yet, it has the potential to do great things for our state. It requires procurement people in public authorities to consider the alternative of using open source software, and wherever practicable, using open source in preference to proprietary software.

It says that if OSS is not practicable for whatever reason, don't use it. But it must be given a fair go.

Nothing wrong with that. Not prejudiced to either side (open or closed) in my view.

Re:Initiative for Software Choice?

Whilst I haven't done any background checking on the Initiative for Software Choice I think what they seem to be saying is that the best tool for any particular job should be picked.

The lobby group consists of these people [softwarechoice.org].

It's the usual suspects (MS included). A bill which requires Open Source to be considered will harm their business model. Therefore it must be stopped. Note that the bill doesn't prevent the use of proprietary software, it merely requires people who procure software for the public sector to consider open source. That sounds like software choice to me.

Re:Initiative for Software Choice?

The lobby group consists of these people [softwarechoice.org].

I find it amusing that out of the 200+ companies that are lobbying the South Australian government, there isn't a single one that is Australian.

Re:Initiative for Software Choice?

Hook, line and sinker. Why do I always go at it again? Oh well, lets get on with it:

I agree that the best solution should be sought for the problem, regardless of the origin. However, the specific benefits of open source are not engrained in the selection criteria for governement software selction procedures because these procedures have always been directed at propriety software. (Primary criteria like open data formats, access to the source code if the company goes bust. Secondary things like being able to tinker with it, audit the code during its lifetime, being able to choose another company to maintain it if they're cheaper. That sort of thing.)

By putting into law that open source should be considered, you take away a disadvantage for open source (equal opportunity). You don't give it an unfair advantage.

Because the article doesn't state the precise content of the law or an explanation of it, we can only guess whether it makes it impossible to select the best solution for the problem (oss or propriety).

This is why I say: lets just leave this one alone unless we get more info. It's not worth the fight.

Because it's not symetrical

If the government buys Microsoft software, it will have to pay for software and ALSO have to pay for support only available from a single source and outside the country. If it buys open source software, it only has to pay for support and has a variety of competing companies, including investing tax money back into local economy. A government has a duty to minimize costs and if possible re-invest money into local economy, don't you think?

Now consider a private business or a citizen. If a government produces documents using proprietory software, s\he will probably also have to use the same proprietory software. If OSS is used, multiple commercial vendors will support it and people will be able to access the data using OSS software without spending additional money and on the platform of their choice.

I am not saying all software should be open source. Some projects are so expensive (think realistic 3d games) or unpleasent (think Cobol IDE) to program that the cost can only be recovered with large scale software sales. But if the open source is already available, the government should take advantage of it to save costs for itself and for private entities it interacts with.

Re:Initiative for Software Choice?

FYI, "this ISC mob" is Microsoft.

See Bruce Perens' article MS 'Software Choice' scheme a clever fraud [theregister.co.uk] for a reasoned demolition of their stance.

Re:Initiative for Software Choice?

that's all fine and good for your personal use, but when it comes to government use, i'd prefer they look towards open source before using my taxes to pay for something they may not have needed.

Is Windows sometimes the proper choice? yes. Is windows the proper choice for a low-level bitpusher who only uses a word processor and email? no.

When discussing work and government computers, the vast majority of business and government applications have no need for an expensive Windows license or Microsoft Office. The only thing keeping it there is proprietary formats, which seem to be something the government should move away from rather than perpetuating.

So I don't think that "the best software for the job" is the angle we should look at for government purposes, but rather "does this software do its job well enough to make it unnecessary to purchase proprietary software" or "does this software do its job poorly enough that it justifies buying proprietary software".

How's that for you?

Infernal lobbyists

"The ISC believes that if this 'preference' legislation were to be enacted it would severely limit software choices for South Australiaâ(TM)s government, harming not only its citizens, but also South Australiaâ(TM)s vibrant information and communications technology (ICT) industry."

Paraphrasing:
This bill will reduce the amount of money being payed to the Microsoft Corporation. They indirectly pay my salary so please don't do it.

I would urge anyone who hasn't done so to read the bill in question. It's a marvelous piece of plain speech quite unlike the normal utterings of a politician.

*Sigh*

This wouldn't be the first time the State Government has done something silly. While I think that Open Source stuff doesn't get noticed much as far as State Supply goes, I don't think this is the right way to go about getting it noticed/used either.

It's all about money, not choice.

In business as in democracy in these times, money will buy you a louder voice. Bills like these simply give a voice to the notion that you can use some of this software for free, and a lot of it is actually pretty good. IBM won't help here, because they simply want to use Linux as a way to charge you an arm and a leg for all of their other services. The language of choice is being twisted to limit the real choices of consumers and governments.

no problem.

"global coalition of large and small companies committed to advancing the concept that multiple competing software markets should be allowed to develop and flourish unimpeded by government preference or mandate"

no problem here, you just go about your business as usual and if you put out something good enough to compete with what's given away for free we'll talk...

Few Things

In the Bill itself, its seems to be addressing "Mr President". Im unsure of whom this bill is being proposed too, but if its a Parliament bill, wouldn't it be addressed to Mr Speaker or Mr Premier?

Secondly, this ISC mob seem to be pro choice, as long as that choice is from a commercial product. From the article -

"...look to the competitive software market to acquire the best solution for a given need."

From their members [softwarechoice.org] page, i can see a few more noticeable companies, including Microsoft, yet I cannot identify any open-source companies. Not too much "choice" there, i think.

Public interest, the Public Good and software

Part of the implied social contract of any representative government is to adopt policies and legislation that are in the public interest.

It is in the public interest for high-quality, low-cost or no-cost open source software to exist and be available to all levels of society.

It is also in the public interest for their governments to be run in a cost-effective manner. Unless there is a specific technical requirement that open source software cannot meet, there is no substantive reason why OSS should not be considered and adopted in the government sector. This doesn't even address the issue of locking a government into a proprietary solution.

Contrary to the lobbyists, the bill doesn't prevent proprietary solutions from being used. It merely states a preference for OSS as a guiding principle in the decision-making process for procurement "wherever practicable."

This would foster more competition (not less) and hopefully result in higher-quality software on all fronts.

This sort of enlightened legislation definitely falls under the category of a Public Good.

Nothing wrong with this...

"A public authority must, in making a decision about the procurement of computer software for its operations, have regard to the principle that, wherever practicable, a public authority should use open source software in preference to proprietary software."

So basically, what they're saying is that the government should, instead of using software that is generally low or no cost and can be modified to fit the government's unique needs, that they should use more costly proprietary software that can't be modified, so that they have to conform to whatever the program can do instead of editing the program to create more features, resulting in inefficiency.
I wonder what the Australian taxpayers would have to say about that?
Also, this bill in no way forces the authorities to use OSS if there are no OSS solutions with adequate features, so either the ISC create software that's better than OSS, or they don't get picked. Sounds fair to me.

The Mole

As someone who's just started meddling in the NSW (Australia)public service (local government) after several years in private IT sector, I see the call for open source in the best interest of our clients, i.e the public.

People are becoming alot more concerned with how public money is being spent. Government not only has the opportunity to save money, but also can start giving back to the public by contributing, and most importantly being seen to be contributing, to opensource software which tax payers can then use for themselves.

Although I'm not strictly in an IT position, I am known as one of the IT guys, who can unlock peoples accounts when they are unable to enter their l/p properly after 3 goes.

Unfortunately, it seems, the IT professionals who take up positions in local government come from the bottom of the IT barrel (including myself), often stepping over from other positions and taking up the 'IT person' status, and therefore lack an understanding of possibilities that open source software hold, and have been brought about already by private businesses. With a couple of years working for a small town ISP, looking after half a dozen Linux servers which ran the business, I have developed a opensource/linux background. (Oh, and of course.... constant reading of slashd^H^H^H^H^H^H^ linux Howto's)

Of the several people I have mentioned opensource, prominantly linux, software to, they have been baffled. Downloading the latest win32 OpenOffice is a great first step. Especially with the Export to pdf button.

I will be pushing opensource initiatives, taking on the burden of being the opensource mole, with already open office looking to replace our current proprietry office suite, linux on our main file/backup server, two NT2000 servers look to be replaced by a single linux server, and an old server resurected into a internet gateway. Hey... who thinks I can turn this into a reality TV show??? can't be any worse then....

Gross Misrepresentation?

It would appear to me that the ISC is grossly misrepresenting their membership base by stating that 'together the ISC and CompTIA have 110 corporate and individual members in Australia'. I would suggest that a vast majority of those are individuals 'looking for the tools to develop [their] career[s] [comptia.org]'. I would go so far as to say that without surveying their membership base, to say that members of the parent organisation are aligned with the values of its subsidiary is misleading, and if I were a CompTIA member I would be most unimpressed by this misrepresentation. If you happen to be a CompTIA member, perhaps you should make it clear that you do not necessarily agree with the ISC, and that these figures should therefore be taken with a grain of salt. In fact given this creative accounting, I would be wary of paying attention to anything this organisation has to say.

I agree entirely with the ISC.

The ISC, by its own definition, is a "global coalition of large and small companies committed to advancing the concept that multiple competing software markets should be allowed to develop and flourish unimpeded by government preference or mandate."

Hear, hear! These large and small companies should ALL be permitted to submit their Free / open source software to governments for consideration, on a level playing field.

Oh, what's that you say? Your company doesn't write Free / open source software? Well, I guess this isn't your market then, now is it?

"The software must be F/OSS" is discriminatory against proprietary software vendors in the same way that "the software cannot be a refrigerator" is discriminatory against Frigidaire.

If the proprietary vendors want to compete for an open source project, they're more than welcome. Hell, if Frigidaire wants to get into the F/OSS software business, they're more than welcome to submit bids too.

South Australia and Law

South Australia has a history of legal innovation. Indeed, beyond the issues of suffrage for which they are well known, the system of land registration known as Torrens Title has been exported widely. One of the most interesting aspects of this is the legal definition of open source that has been provided in the Act. I am sure that JMS would be disappointed with the phrase "open source" being the legally enshrined thing for which the government departments must make consideration. I too would prefer to find "Free Software" as the phrase, even "Software Libre", but the name concerns me little.

My question to the reading populace is are we happy with the definition? It is always difficult to get such things right and ammendments can always be made to refine things, but is the definition as it stands even adequate? I think it is adequate, in fact I would go further and think that as a generic description it is actually very good.

irony

This coming from the same government that just put forward several million dollars towards a Linux supercomputer.

SA

I work in SA Government.

And where we work, basically, unofficial policy, if it doesn't come with source, don't use it.

Australian Citizen?

Then why are you reading this and not writing a letter yourself sharing your views on the situation. I am sure that the views of Australian citizens will weigh in more than those of a potentially biased American based organisation backed by a company who will be directly adversely affected by the passing of this bill.

It is obvious that there are plenty of reasons to use FOSS in a government environment. If there is not a FOSS product for a given task (high end databases, specialised reporting applications, etc.) then the best product may indeed be closed source. If two products are similar in features/price then FOSS should prevail. The government still gets software which meets their needs, often significantly cheaper (especially in the long run), and the taxpayer benefits at the expense of proprietary software vendor(s) who are often (but not necessarily always) charging a ridiculous amount of money for an inferior product.

Usage vs Development

I, speaking as a human, dont give a flying fuck what license a government agency is under for using software. If you disagree, you're a fucking moron.
The problem is when they need software to be developed for them. Then it should be open-source- What the people pay for, the people should get.

How does this work? Government agency B wants to use some software, so they buy it. Then they want something new developed for it, so they go to the software company that makes it, give them money, and say "make it."
All code written on the dime of the government is released into the open. It doesnt matter if it doesnt work by itself, because not the whole program was created by the government. What the people pay for, the people should get- it's unfair to expect more.

All other things I would mention are covered fully IN THE FUCKING ARTICLE.

Hello? It's for you.

1980 Called, and they want their Troll Back!

Shouldn't be a problem

Luckily the software that tallies the votes is closed source, so the outcome should be the way the ISC wants anyway.

Choice

An act of parliament that mandates public bodies {who pays their wages again?} to consider all the options before making a purchase is hardly a Bad Thing. The only convincing arguments against it are:

1. The choice is so vast that more resources would be expended on the act of choosing than on the product chosen
2. You are the present supplier of a product which is likely to be deemed inferior by the criteria applied for judgement.

If (1), this says: the market is saturated, all software is much of a one-ness, there is nothing to choose between it and you may as well pick the one with the prettiest box. If (2), this says: software suppliers -- or the beneficiaries of, or apologists for, their corruption and selfishness -- are influencing governments.

What does the empirical evidence suggest?

Software Affirmative Action

Sometimes affirmitive action policies are considered neccessary in order to force employers to think outside the box, and consider employees that may not be in the normal "zone of comfort" for the employer in question. Once the bar is raised, and the targetted group is "inside the zone of comfort" once more, the policies could potentially be considered a success.

In order to communicate the SA legislation effectively to other legislators, it shouldn't really be considered a 'statement of preference'.. perhaps it should be referred to as a "software affirmitive action policy".

Let's just take a few lines from the ISC letter, liberally changing "software" references to "people with green eyes" (nods to William Peters classic blue-eyes brown-eyes psychological study). Lets further pretend that green-eyed people are considered to be a "lower caste" by most members of society, and though just as capable as brown, and blue eyed people, are generally not considered equal by employers.

On behalf of the Initiative for eye-colour choice, I write to express our concerns regarding the proposed employment bill, which gives undue preference to people with green eyes, over people with other coloured eyes. The IEC believes that if this "preference" legislation were to be enacted, it would severely limit employment opportunities for South Australia's government, harming not only its citizens, but also South Australia's vibrant government employment sector.

The IEC is a global association overwhelmingly made up of, and supported by, blue and brown eyed people, with over 15,000 members in 89 countries. The IEC strongly supports equal opportunity for people with blue, brown and green eyes, and believe that "preference" policies may not select the most meritorious potential employee in any one project, at the expense of providing equal employment opportunities to green-eyed people.

Sometimes, a government needs to put the good of the many, over the good of the few; and software preference legislation has the potential to level the playing field a little for open source tools, and open-source-related services, in the mind of government project managers.

As a developer of BOTH commercial and open source software, I think there is certainly scope for affirmitive action in software choice.

Red.

Pointless maybe?

The Institute for Software Choice is saying that Governments and other organisations select the best tool for any particular job rather than being essentially biased towards Open Source.

Under this reasoning, Open Source would have several major points in its favour - mainly:

• Open source code to adapt and modify
• Open file formats
• Free (as in beer) cost when purchased
• Less restrictive licencing for republishing
• Easy to maintain through open code even after the file format becomes "old"

Given all those initial advantages before you even start looking at the pros and cons of the actual software, I can't quite work out why Open Source feel they need this law in force to give them extra (and IMO, unneeded given the list above) advantages.

ISC is wrong!

The government has the right to say which type of software it wants to use. If it finds open source software to be more secure or practical for whatever reason, then so be it.

It in no way limits competition. Any software vendor can still offer a solution to the government - they just have to conform to their requirements of making it open source.

I'm an Australian, and I for one would like to see this bill passed.

2 questions about softwarechoice /CompTIA

1 - Does the fact that their webpage is translated only in spanish and portuguese mean that MS or any related company is concerned mainly about linux/OSS gaining market shares in latin america?
2 - are they going to behave like SCO did and terminate their Linux certification ? [comptia.org]
(BTW, what's this certification worth? is it better than RHCE or LPI?)

Other footed shoe

When was the last time you heard "this" group go on about how a spec for MS Word should be opened up to include other software?

bomb?

...Drop Open Source Bill Is this 'Bill' some kind of opensource bomb???

What they really meant to say:

Original Title:

Lobbyists Urge South Australia To Drop Open Source Bill

After Slashdot discussion:

Open Source Lobbyists Urge South Australia To Drop Bill

Be Pro-Active

The Premiers website

http://www.sa.alp.org.au/people/people.html?seat =R amsay

The Premiers email address.

mailto:[e-mail]

Mod this up quicksmart ;)

Cybersquatting

Someone must be cybersquatting slashdot.org . How else could you explain "lobbyists" was not written as superlative "lobbiest" ?

Outsourced...!

But the South Australian Government is under an outsourcing agreement with EDS for all of their IT!

Under the agreement, it doesn't matter what the Government wants, they eat what they are fed.

Personally, having seen it from the inside, EDS are not big supporters/promoters of OSS. Why? Because when you collect $$s for every support call you take and for every server you have to support, you don't necessarily want things...

Ahh... preeching... converted...

The other thing is that even if EDS embraced OSS, the development of various pieces of software would more than likely not be performed by local companies/professionals.

Bruce

brilliant

To me, open source software will always be, first and foremost, 'a vast opportunity for South Australia'.

How do geeks lobby?

Anyone know how to do our lobbying?

Is there anyway we could get a good speaker that is sort of local to go talk to some of the more undecided politicians? Maybe Rusty or Tridge? These two bring money into Australia and some of that can be directly tracked to South Australia.

LinuxSA [linuxsa.org.au] has a bit more on the propsed law.

This law will get passed if the local goverment understands that supporting open souce does being in people all over the world through things like linux.conf.au [linux.org.au].

Let's Trade Places with Proprietory Software HaHa

Soooo
Let's make it mandatory world-wide to use OSS
and after we have the same market saturation
then remove the laws and see how many people want
to go back to paying and paying and paying for
slavery and blackmail!!!!

That would be fair wouldn't it?
Every see a free'd people want to go back under
a dictator once they taste freedom...
It's no wonder all these bullshit organizations
with big sounding names want to protest!

Open standards are more important

I would rather have a law that made open standards a requirement. Exactly as Bruce Perens says with his Sincere Choice initiative [sincerechoice.org] as a response to "The Initiative for Software Choice".

Who the ISC is made of?

Go to:

http://softwarechoice.org/init_members.asp

Copy the member list into a text file (company.txt).

Then do:

% cat company.txt | sed -e '1,$s/.*(\(.*\))$/\1/g' | sort | uniq -c

You will get the following:
1 Australia
3 Austria
1 Bahrain
2 Beirut
2 Brazil
1 Canada
2 Costa Rica
7 Egypt
2 France
1 Germany
1 Greece
1 Ireland
2 Italy
2 Jordan
1 Kuwait
3 Lebanon
1 Malta
2 Netherlands
2 Pakistan
2 Panama
1 Peru
2 Philippines
2 Poland
1 Portugal
1 Puerto Rico
1 Romania
1 Russian Federation
3 Saudi Arabia
2 South Africa
3 South Korea
1 Thailand
1 Turkey
12 UAE
4 UK
38 USA
1 Venezuela

There is a total of 113 companies, out of them 33 are Middle-eastern Mulsim country originated companies (if I include Pakistan even though its not in the Middle-East).

I'm not trying to imply anything racist, I'm just very curious since the ration here is very unlikely any other technical organizaion where 95% of the members are either from the USA, Western Europe, or the Far East.

You should lobby too

You can lobby the premier directly through this web-based email form [sa.gov.au] I met with Richard Alston, the Federal Australian Minister for Technology a few years ago at an awards ceremony and spent a half hour with him explaining open source and the famous role some Australians play in it (e.g. Andrew Morton - kernel, Paul 'Rusty' Russell iptables, Andrew 'tridg' Tridgell - Samba, rsync ...) and found he was genuinely interested. He asked for some submissions which I sent to him. You are never sure of a result, however the Federal Government recently issued a pro open source policy, so at least I think I did no harm. So, you can probably help by offering your support, particularly any South Australians out there.

Initiative for Software Choice

I love these names. Initiative for Software Choice. I wonder if the people that think them up can help smirking when they unveil it to their paymasters.

It reminds of election time here in the good ole US of A, when I hear radio ads "Paid for by Citizens for Better Government" or some other such name.

Of course, the one-two punch analogy to elections won't be complete until opponents suggest that "pro open source" is "pro pedophilia" and "pro terrorist".

story posted over a month ago - regected agaim :-(

not that I'm grousing, but I did submit this EXACT same story over a month ago.... :

2003-05-08 05:46:45 New South Australian Government law to prefer Open Source (articles,announce) (rejected)

from a lobbying point of view, wouldn't it make sense that the OS movement had an extra month of visibility, rather than what has actually happened .. ??

it looks like what happened in this case, is that /. has only picked up the story AFTER the mainstream media has picked it up (The Age) - now that's sad.

I always though that the whole point of /. is that it LED the mainstream IT media in breaking stories, obviously I've been labouring under a misaprehension.

9 rejections over 3 years and going strong !

Preferential treatment? Why?

From the proposed law:
Principle applying to the procurement of computer software 17A.
(1) A public authority must, in making a decision about the procurement of computer software for its operations, have regard to the principle that, wherever practicable, a public authority should use open source software in preference to proprietary software.

Personally, I think that is almost as bad as giving preference to a proprietary solution.

Let each tool stand on its own merits.

Affirmative action for software

The whole point of affirmative action [should be] a way to compensate for embedded preferences that are so ingrained that they aren't obvious to people making decisions using them. From this point of view, people need encouragement to consider alternatives from the mainstream monopoly approach, and in the interests of fairness a shove in an alternative direction is needed.

OK, yeah, such systems are often as boneheaded as the problem they purport to solve. But this is the way governments wield power, by fiat. So recommending a marginal product over mainstream products that have expensive representation of their interests is an equalizing move.

I don't approve of nation-states in general, but I do understand why they resort to these options.

Choices choices

I don't see what the ISC is so worried about. If the best solution is a proprietary software, then the gov't will choose proprietary. However, this bill simply urges the gov't to explore all the options, eventually saving money. [Not to mention providing jobs for us geeks who know so much about OSS, and Unix :-) ]

At the risk of getting flamed beyond all belief...

I must ask this: why is ANY law that mandates preference for any solution over any other solution good? I think Open Source is wonderful...and that's exactly why I don't think it needs this. In the end, assuming competency of the one in charge, the best solution is most likely to prevail. Naturally, there's going to be deviation from situation to situation on this, but when you're talking about legislation you have to deal with averages, and I feel that this holds true. In truth, I think that if someone ISN'T competent to make the proper choice, I'd rather they not choose Open Source because of some legal requirement or prodding; if something gets all borked up, they'll just point to Open Source software as the cause.

The Open Source world of software came out of nowhere, and didn't require big marketing budgets, lobbyists, or snappy ad campaigns...and it certainly doesn't need a law to pressure others into using it.

ANZ privacy laws would be better driver than price

Time and time again, we've seen M$ offer special deals to large organisations that "decide" to use OSS by decree -- governments, universities, companies. (Could this be the motivation for issuing these decrees on the basis of price alone in the first place?)

We've also seen M$ or their proxies (e.g. SCO) take steps to punish organisations that stick with their OSS decisions. The threat implicit in the "ISC"'s choice (and shame on them for appropriating the good name of the real ISC [isc.org]) is that the first hint of any problem with OSS, and they'll raise a ruckus in the media and try to discredit the public officials who did not choose " the best " software for the job, but made an "ideological" choice.

The only argument that can stand up to this onslaught is that data formats need to be open, so that the owners of the data can maintain their ownership. This argument has been made brilliantly in other contributions to this discussion. We might add to that: the owners of the data need to be able to see the source code of the programmes and operating systems (particularly the network components) which manipulate and communicate those data in order to avoid theft, misuse and misappropriation of those data.

Australia and New Zealand have exceptionally strong privacy laws -- and these laws are enforced. People, government bodies, and even large corporations with deep pockets take these laws very seriously, even though Echelon seems to be exempt ( NB: This is a different discussion.). One way that South Australia could help itself stick by its decision to use OSS in the face of these lobbyists would be to refer to its own privacy legislation as the prime driver for OSS, rather than price alone.

The ISC is right

Govts. shouldn't pass laws mandating which software should be used. Let govt. depts. decide for themselves which software they want to use. Their arguement is that simple. Yet there are a number of pro open source people who "just don't get it".

Fate of bill likely to be known by July

Ian Gilfillan [democrats.org.au], the South Australian Democrat, who introduced a bill to amend state software procurement policies, says he expects to know the fate of the bill [theage.com.au] by the end of July this year.

Second reading of the bill in SA Parliament

TheHon.IANGILFILLAN obtained leave and introÂduced a bill for an act to amend the State Supply Act 1985. Read a first time.

TheHon.IANGILFILLAN: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

In spite of its rather ponderous title, the bill is about the use of open source [slashdot.org] software by the government of South AusÂtralia. [slashdot.org]Open source [slashdot.org] software is an unusual concept and one that will take a little time to explain. I will deal first with ordinary products. When we buy something, we usually buy the right to use that thing in any way we see fit. For example, if you buy a car, you can add roof racks or a tow bar and you can even paint the car a different colour. The key thing about buying something is that it becomes your property and you can do with it as you will, even to the point of selling it on to someone else. You can even break up a car into pieces and sell the pieces to different people.

518 Software: somehow we have been tricked into believÂing that software is a different kind of thing and many have accepted the idea that we do not own a piece of software once we buy it. In fact, some of the major suppliers of software have moved to a revenue model whereby it is necessary to continually pay rent for the right to use a product that has been purchased. Even stranger, we are not allowed to see the workings of the software so that we can check to make sure that it is doing what we expect or want it to do. If I continue with the car example, this would be equivalent to buying a car but never being allowed to look under the bonnet to see what is inside. It is indeed a very strange situation where people are paying astonishingly large amounts of money on an on-going basis for very few rights. In many cases people are not even allowed to talk about their experiences with using a piece of software because of the narrow terms of the licence agreement that comes with that software.

The [slashdot.org]open source [slashdot.org] movement: in response to this and many other problems in the computer software industry, a worldÂwide movement of people has developed a set of competing software products that do not have restrictive licence agreements. In fact, the most common clause associated with [slashdot.org]open source [slashdot.org] software is that you can use the software in any way and modify it as you see fit, provided you include a full copy of the source code every time you sell the software to another party. As the source code of this software is available for anyone to see at any time, this code is robust and secure.

In South Australia this [slashdot.org]open source [slashdot.org] software movement is a vast opportunity for us. Our universities could be teaching computer science around [slashdot.org]open source [slashdot.org] products, allowing students to examine in intimate detail the workings of established products. Every student assignment has the potential to contribute to the body of functioning [slashdot.org]open source [slashdot.org] systems. Simply by forwarding their completed work to the relevant [slashdot.org]open source [slashdot.org] project, their code could become part of a greater work in publication. It is worth noting that some of the most widely used and recognised pieces of [slashdot.org]open source [slashdot.org] software have been developed here in Australia. As an example, the Samba project, which allows Linux computers to seamlessly integrate with windows networks, was develÂoped by a team primarily based in Canberra.

Because the [slashdot.org]open source [slashdot.org] paradigm uses a different business model, it is possible for student computers to be fully programmed with operating systems, developmen

I wrote in, lets see what happens...

As I am still registered as a voter in South Australia, I felt it would be hypocritical of me not to write to Mr. Rann with a counter-argument. After all, I winge an awful lot about politicians being out of touch, if I didn't make an effort now that I have a connection to the issue, I wouldn't be able to keep on winging ;)

I wrote it within a few hours of the /. story, I hope to post it tonight. I may even put it up online since that's exactly what ISC did with their letter.

Follow Article Minister

Just spotted this article with a South Australian Politician slating open source...
http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,67 51841%5E15306%5E%5Enbv%5E,00.html [news.com.au]

Suggestion

Either a) Get new lawyers. b) Stop trolling.

Re:The GPL: Intellectual Property or Intellectual

Please don't feed the trolls.....

It has the same old nonsense:
-We have to do all the work for the rest of the world to leach
-Compiling with GCC makes program GPLed
-GPL is keeping linux back

Jeroen

Re:The GPL: Intellectual Property or Intellectual

A few comments:

1. The Linux kernel does support Token Ring, it was probably disabled on your distro for some reason.

2. ext2 does not need defragmentation.

3. Your lawyer is an idiot. You only need to release source code under the GPL if you are releasing the binaries; if it was a purely internal development then the source can be kept private. Secondly the GCC license does not and never has said that everything compiled with GCC must be open source.

I say again, your legal beagal is an idiot. He did not actually read the GPL, he just pontificated on something he did not understand. Because of that you have wasted a lot of time and effort doing something unnecessary.

Re:The GPL: Intellectual Property or Intellectual

You and your lawyer are ... somewhat naive with regards to the Gnu GPL (General Public, not Protective, License). It does not indicate you must release the source for any modifications you make to programs covered by the GPL, only for modifications you make to programs covered by the GPL AND THEN DISTRIBUTED. In other words, you can make any modifications you want to the source, and keep them private, as long as you don't then release the binaries resulting from compilations of your modified source. Further, my own reading of the GPL does not indicate that simply using a GPL work such as GCC results in the software you are compiling to be ruled by the GPL; the GPL talks about "works based on the Program[controlled by the GPL]" or "a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language." Penultimately, I think you're probably about five years or so behind the times if you think that Linux is, at this point, "only a bit player." Lastly, I'm guessing you're just trolling, right?

Re:The GPL: Intellectual Property or Intellectual

I'm sure I'll be corrected by people who know about these things, but to my understanding, your lawyers are mistaken.

I think you're entitled to modify GPL'd stuff all you want for your own amusement, but you're not allowed to release compiled binaries of your work without also releasing the source code. So if all the work you did was internal, I think you're entitled to keep it that way, although if you have made useful changes you ought (as a moral principle) to give them back to the community.

I'm not sure of the status of GCC, but I'd very much doubt that everything you compile with it has to be released - how could you, since some things that you compile may be other people's proprietory code! And I certainly wouldn't want to be deluged by a sea of GPL'd "Hello, World!" programs...

Would anyone who is, actually, a lawyer like to comment? I'd like to be clear on these points myself :-)

Re:The GPL: Intellectual Property or Intellectual

Your lawyers obviously do not have a clue what they are talking about.

Compiling software with gcc does not require you to release your software under the GPL.

If you are developing 'in-house' and are not releasing your software you do not need to release the source code.

If you use someone else's code, of course you have to comply with their licence. If that is the GPL and you want to sell your code as well as their code I should think you would have to release it.

If you incorporated a piece of Windows's code into your application, do you not think that you would have to comply with Microsoft's licence???

Linux has had Token Ring support for a long time; this looks like more FUDing and Trolling.

Ext2 is a well written filesystem and does not require constant defragging like Microsoft's filesystems do. This is lack of knowledge on your own part. I have a number of file and database servers running ext2 and ext3 that have been up for a number of years, while being heavily used and still only have 3 to 6% fragmentation.

Sorry to all others for responding to such an obvious Troll; however some fool had moderated it up.

Re:The GPL: Intellectual Property or Intellectual

"So you can imagine our suprise when we were informed by a lawyer that we would be required to publish our source code for others to use. It was brought to our attention that Linux is copyrighted under something called the GPL, or the Gnu Protective License. Part of this license states that any changes to the kernel are to be made freely available. Unfortunately for us, this meant that the great deal of time and money we spent 'touching up' Linux to work for this investment firm would now be available at no cost to our competitors."

Always ask your lawyer before you sign the deal. Besides, "making the changes freely available" means giving people the source code if you give them the binaries. You don't have to give the binaries or source to anyone except the investment firm. The GPL also makes it clear that you and the investment firm can separately agree that they will not redistribute the binaries or code.

"Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to its source code released. This was simply unacceptable."

Replace your lawyer--he can't read. The GPL does not require you to license things under the GPL simply because they were compiled with gcc.

If you don't believe me, read it [gnu.org] yourself.

And stop trolling.

Re:Please note

But they have Penguins!

poor caldera...(or should i say SCO)

You are dead right. Our busniess was foolish to skip on legal advice, and we has to release early versions of our software under the GPL.

To any business owners / managers reading this: Please, please don't listen to the Linux Maniacs. It's cheaper to avoid the GPL altogether.

if only you had released a windows distribution instead of trying that whole linux thing, huh?

You forgot to mention

how many hours it took to copy an 18M file from one linux box to another.

Re:The GPL: Intellectual Property or Intellectual

I'd like to avoid people who just don't smell the coffee :)

By far one of the more entertaining Trolls I've read.

Re:Yawn

I believe it's called "English".

Cheers
Stor

Re:Please note

Yeah it's not great for straight dudes like myself but it seems quite ok if you're gay: there's a pretty big gay subculture in Adelaide.

The Arts and wine (Barossa Valley) in Adelaide are excellent.

The water is pretty ordinary but probably better than most developed areas around the world (how's the water in your home town?).

I live in Melbourne and if I had a dollar for every time I've heard "I moved here from Adelaide" i'd be as rich as the dotcom era claimed i'd be. Not that I (or anyone else for that matter) mind.

Cheers
Stor

p.s. NOTHING is worse than Canberra for night life. Whoever told you that nonsense is wrong.

Re:The GPL: Intellectual Property or Intellectual

Linux's lack of Token Ring support?

You say that like it's a *bad* thing :-)

I find it hard to believe that anyone's still using Token Ring in this day and age. As the vendors dry up, does it still make sense to pay 3 times as much for 1/8th the BW of 100 megabit Ethernet? All for the sake of "deterministic networking"?

Anyway, it looks like the client got what they deserved in the end.

By the way, as others have suggested, you need to spend some quality time with a good IP lawyer, reading *and undertanding* the GPL.

Re:OpenSource is not just one software vendor

I think you are making a valid point there.

Closed source licences have several inherent problems. One can too easily become "locked-in" to the vendor through abuse of proprietary file formats, among other things.

Were I initiating a government IT purchasing programme, I would begin by mandating that any government department have the right to inspect -- and modify if necessary -- the source code of any software they use. Hell, if I thought it was even remotely workable, I'd insist that no binary executable compiled outside these premises shall be permitted to run herewithin - but then this breaks down because you still need a C compiler to compile anything. Unless you write a complete C interpreter {you can always perform the compilation of the compiler interpretatively} in assembler.

What it comes down to is simply: no corporation's secrets are more important than National Security. If any software vendor refuses to show the source code to the government, just what are they hiding?

Re:The GPL: Intellectual Property or Intellectual

I'd always done my work on Windows

My name is Mike, and I thank you for having the courage to come forward with your problem.

The concept of having access to source code was very appealing to us, as we'd be able to modify the kernel to meet our exacting standards which we're unable to do with Microsoft's products.

Bravo! [clapping]

Although we met several technical challenges along the way (specifically, Linux's lack of Token Ring support and the fact that we were unable to defrag its ext2 file system)

I'm sensing anger here, but I feel it is a bit misplaced. Linux does support Token Ring generally. Unlike FAT32, ext2 does not need defragmentation. Perhaps you should confer with a support group that discusses your distro?

Although we had planned for no one outside of this company to ever use, let alone see the source code, we were now put in a difficult position.

Hold on a second, if I understand you correctly, you are concerned that under the GPL which states that you have to release the source code of your modifications if you plan to distribute the binaries of your code, you will have to release your source code. But at the same time, you don't plan on distributing any code outside of the company. I don't understand your confusion, my son, but if you never plan on releasing anything outside of your company, you never need to worry about releasing the source code.

I think the biggest thing keeping Linux from being truly competitive with Microsoft is this GPL. Its draconian requirements virtually guarentee that no business will ever be able to use it.

Damn it! You were doing so well. Why did you fall off the wagon. Was it me? Did the community not do enough to support you?

I may reconsider if Linux switches its license to something a little more fair, such as Microsoft's "Shared Source". Until then its attempts to socialize the software market will insure it remains only a bit player.

INTERVENTION! Here's some reading material for you. Open source principles [opensource.org],GPL [gnu.org], and where you can find help. [linux.org] Please read them and when you're ready, you can rejoin the group.

Re:The GPL: Intellectual Property or Intellectual

So you can imagine our suprise when we were informed by a lawyer that we would be required to publish our source code for others to use. It was brought to our attention that Linux is copyrighted under something called the GPL, or the Gnu Protective License. Part of this license states that any changes to the kernel are to be made freely available. Unfortunately for us, this meant that the great deal of time and money we spent "touching up" Linux to work for this investment firm would now be available at no cost to our competitors.

That seems like a fairly short-sighted opinion. If all the work that went into Linux was not available at no cost to competitors you would never had even gotten the chance to use, and hack, Linux yourself. Think of it like a marriage. You give and take, both (hopefully) ending up better in the end.