Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Your Rights Online

Texas Hearings On Open Source Bill 168

Posted by timothy from the think-big-think-open dept.
fusion812 writes "Senate Bill 1579 is proposed Texas state legislation that would require state agencies to consider 'open source software' when purchasing computer software. The bill has been introduced in the Senate, referred to committee, and is awaiting a schedule date for a hearing." Here's some more information from EFF Austin; fusion812 supplies a summary of the bill's provisions as well as a Real Audio sample of the provided testimony, both below. Also, see this report on NewsForge for some juicy quotes.


A sample recording of testimony can be heard here: http://www.Senate.state.tx.us/ram/archive/2003/may /050803StAffpm.ram

More information: Texas Senate Bill 1579
Senate Bill 1579 proposes that, for all new software acquisitions, a state agency shall:
1. consider acquiring open source software products in addition to proprietary software products;
2. except as provided by Subdivisions (4) and (5), acquire software products primarily on a value-for-money basis;
3. provide justification whenever a proprietary software product is acquired instead of open source software;
4. avoid the acquisition of products that do not comply with open standards for interoperability or data storage;
5. 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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Texas Hearings On Open Source Bill More

Texas Hearings On Open Source Bill

Comments Filter:

  • They love these things (Score:5, Funny)

    by RightInTheNeck ( 667426 ) on Saturday May 10, 2003 @01:50PM (#5926749)
    Senators live for these kind of hearings. They can make up at least 4 hours of quality sleep.

  • KaZaa (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 10, 2003 @01:51PM (#5926756)
    5. 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."

    So state workers in Texas will now be using KaZaa Lite.

  • Is there another clause (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Timesprout ( 579035 ) on Saturday May 10, 2003 @01:57PM (#5926783)
    provide justification whenever a proprietary software product is acquired instead of open source software;

    I have always been of the opinion that the correct tool should be chose for the task at hand, be that tooling open or proprietary I really dont care.

    I get concerned when I see clauses such as those above when there is no corresponding clause for justifying Open source choice over proprietary. Forcing adoption of Open Source thru legisaltion is every bit as bad, if not worse as the methods MS used to gain dominance.

    • Re:Is there another clause (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      No offense, but I'm getting sick of these "just use the right tool for the job" comments. Haven't you read Stallman? Think about where we'd all be if everyone had thought like this, why, we'd have no open source software at all! We'd all instead just be using "the right tool for the job (TM)" Remember, Linux wasn't always such a good OS. People had to work hard to make it that way. Jesus Christ, if there's something lacking in Free Software, work to make it better; don't throw up your hands and give i
      • so you would rather "use the OSS tool for the job even tho it doesn't work" ? come on.

        if people prefer OSS, then they WILL make it better. but in the meantime, they'll use what works. or, at least they should. you can use OSS when it works better, which doesn't take that long to be the case.
      • This is one of those "clever" attempts at trolling, isn't it?

    • Re:Is there another clause (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Rooktoven ( 263454 ) on Saturday May 10, 2003 @02:13PM (#5926861) Homepage
      How do you know what the "right tool" is if you are locked into using certain proprietary software that through licensing perpetuates its presence indefinitely?

      Having to "consider" does not mean having to "use". I am amazed at how often this point is twisted. Besides, if closed source _is_ the best tool, why should its makers worry?
      • ? ...locked in to using certain propriety software... ?

        Isn't it ironic they released a Real Aduio (TM) sample!

      • By all means consider all available solutions(realistic one anyway). To do otherwise would be remiss. There are IT professionals out there who are familiar with the capabilities and shortcoming of both proprietary and open source software you know and can make an informed and unbiased recommendation. My point was there seemed to be excessive emphasis on justifying proprietary selections over OSS ones which is not a fair selection process

        Frankly I am amazed at how frequently this "locked" argument is twis
        • That's pretty naive. Whenever a corporation or government invests in an application, they are locked in. They face a nontrivial cost to migrate to a different application. It's true even for word processors and other desktop software, but it's especially true for accounting systems, payroll systems, and other enterprise software. The threat of lockin is very real and is a major factor in IT management decisions. Almost every large IT department is maintaing some aging crappy applications that they'd li
          • Just because its expensive and a lengthy, difficult a pain in the ass process does not mean an organisation does not have the option to go down that path. How would OSS ever gain market share at the enterprise level if they could not ?? My original point about a fair unbiased choice stands. It will be every bit as expensive to switch from a poor OSS choice as from a poor proprietary one.

            BTW offtopic but whoever modded my original post redundant is a twat :-)

        • No, you dolt, they do whatever they can to make proprietary formats (like doc) so that other's can't use those formats (see DMCA), and so that any conversions from MS formats to non-MS formats are going to be lossy.
          • Thats it exactly. I doubt if the Texas lege cares whether they have the source code for the applications. The point of all of these "must use OSS" initiatives is to get control of the data. I've seen systems that make it impossible to export the data in any useful format, just to prevent you from ever upgrading to a competitor.

            An interesting compromise would be to allow proprietary software, but to require a complete published spec for the data format. Nothing like a good compromise to incense both sid
        • If you do not like the license you do not have to purchase and are free to find an alternative.

          Right, because you won't need access any data from your old system. You can just throw out all your company's information and start anew.

    • Re:Is there another clause (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Malcontent ( 40834 ) on Saturday May 10, 2003 @02:32PM (#5926967)
      How is this in any way forcing somebody to use open source. If you state govt just spent millions (or billions) on SQL server licences don't you think they taxpayers should ask "why did you choose SQL server when you could have gotten postgres, mysql, interbase, or sapdb for free?". Personally I would also ask them justify why they chose one proprietary product instead of using less expensive ones too.

      If they had legitamate reasons for choosing MS sql server then they should have no problems telling the taxpayers why.
      • A well made and valid point. However there is of course the old debate of the cost of training people to use the open source stuff, although I think it has been established that it saves money in the long term.

        Also, how many taxpayers would know, and comprehend, the alternatives and would be vocal enough bring this issue up to the relevant people.

        You know, as much as there is an anti-establishment spirit among many of the geek/hacker culture, I think if they/we would actually do something about issues, s

        • " A well made and valid point. However there is of course the old debate of the cost of training people to use the open source stuff, although I think it has been established that it saves money in the long term."

          In the case of databases there is no retraining except for the DBAs. That's a very small number of relatively smart people to train.

          "Also, how many taxpayers would know, and comprehend, the alternatives and would be vocal enough bring this issue up to the relevant people."

          Some would. If the stat
      • Just about a year CHiPs were stopping the shredders [slashdot.org] in California over a $95 million deal with Oracle in which evidently far, far more licenses than were strictly necessary were purchased by the state.

        You don't generally get $85 million kickback-smelling deals with free software. Is it possible? Yes, or at least it could be if companies like Red Hat (or the old incarnation of VA Software :)) were the size of companies like Oracle and Microsoft. But for the immediate future, using open source means never ha
    • I get concerned when I see clauses such as those above when there is no corresponding clause for justifying Open source choice over proprietary.

      The justification for open source over proprietary is mentioned right above this requirement, namely unrestricted use, right to modify, right to distribute, and low up front costs. It doesn't bar any agency from choosing Word over OpenOffice. It just says that you can't pick MS Word without bothering to look at the alternatives and compare the total cost. You

    • Re:Is there another clause (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dbarclay10 ( 70443 ) on Saturday May 10, 2003 @02:33PM (#5926974)
      provide justification whenever a proprietary software product is acquired instead of open source software;
      I have always been of the opinion that the correct tool should be chose for the task at hand, be that tooling open or proprietary I really dont care.
      I get concerned when I see clauses such as those above when there is no corresponding clause for justifying Open source choice over proprietary. Forcing adoption of Open Source thru legisaltion is every bit as bad, if not worse as the methods MS used to gain dominance.

      I agree with you wholeheartedly, it's a sad state of affairs when people need to be told to justify picking the best solution available.

      Unfortunately, that IS the state of affairs. It's sad, but many, many, MANY proprietary software aquisitions aren't chosen because they're the best solution for the job, but because somebody got taken out to a nice dinner. What's more, in my experience, the people who are deciding what software to buy aren't even remotely qualified to evaluate whether or not it even solves the problem at hand, let alone whether it's the best solution or not.

      Does this happen with Open Source or Free Software? I've never seen it, but I'll accept for the sake of argument that it happens. But on a much, much, much smaller scale. Because of this problem, because it's so endemic with proprietary software but pretty much non-existent with Open Source and Free Software, because authorities routinely purchase software which doesn't fit the bill (so to speak), it's necessary to say to them, "allright, you can choose whatever you want, but if it's going to be proprietary, if it's going to cose us these truly distrubing amounts of money, you have to tell us why."

      It's a purely reactionary bill to a very specific trend that's been observed. It isn't an attempt to make some ethical statement, it's an attempt to stop the over-aquisition of software that costs more to buy, that costs more to maintain, and may not even solve the problem it was supposedly bought for.

      Why don't they say the same Open Source and Free Software? I dunno. I guess because up-front aquisition costs are so small in comparison to proprietary software as to be negligible (I've seen a government agency purchanse about six million dollars worth of Oracle licenses when all they needed were flat-file text databases, and would certainly have been served by one of MySQL, SAPDB, or Postgres. They could have bought the software, hardware, *and* support from a vendor like IBM for about a sixth of that). Perhaps it's also proven to be cheaper to maintain, as well. (And, in my experience, it always is. Invariably. I had six people working under me at one point maintaining a hundred Windows workstations. And they were overworked. I was maintaining, on my own, well over two hundred Unix workstations and servers. And I still had time left over to do the odd programming task that some other group needed, as well as "manage" the six Windows techs. They weren't idiots, either, they followed pretty decent administration policies. There have been studies to this affect. There have also been studies saying the opposite, but I'm sorry, my own experience trumps all studies that were paid-for by lobbiests :).

      Perhaps, if or when Open Source and Free Software proves to be more expensive to both purchase and maintain than the overwhelmingly vast majority of proprietary software that's bought, there will be another bill similar to this one, stating that government agencies must justify these obscene expenditures with little to no benefit. They've proven that they're willing to do it when it happens, so I'll have faith they'll do it again if it becomes necessary :)

    • You answer your own question. Justifying the purchase would just be proving that it is the correct tool. I think justification should always be given for a purchase made with taxpayer money, whether it's for proprietary software, open source software, or a new soda machine.
    • I agree there should be no preference for Open Source software. However these 2 factors are esential in selecting software for government use:

      4. avoid the acquisition of products that do not comply with open standards for interoperability or data storage;

      5. 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."

      I
      • 4. avoid the acquisition of products that do not comply with open standards for interoperability or data storage;

        I agree with you that this is one of the most important aspects of this bill. I like open source, but I think ALL software used by the government should store its data in an open and published format.

        Democracy requires free information. I detest the idea that information created and stored using a certain piece of software might not be accessible at a future date.
    • I get concerned when I see clauses such as those above when there is no corresponding clause for justifying Open source choice over proprietary.

      Lots of agencies and corporations have rules that sole-source contracts (contracts not let through competitive bidding) must be justified. And no, they don't have rules requiring justification of competitive bidding - it's assumed to be the default. Does that concern you also?
    • provide justification whenever a proprietary software product is acquired instead of open source software;

      Don't forget that ignorance is a justification for purchasing proprietary software too. This is the government after all.

  • Texas agencies on mainframe (Score:5, Informative)

    by NTworks ( 163511 ) on Saturday May 10, 2003 @01:59PM (#5926792)
    I work as a computer operator for a datacenter which is mandated by Texas law, that all state agencies have to consider using our datacenter to outsource their IT, and provide proof they can do it cheaper.

    We have many mainframe agencies which spend millions in hardware and software licensing to IBM. We have one on a Sun E10k, and lots of smaller sun boxes, as well as P680 and P690 IBM 64bit mainframe-class AIX servers. A few Win2k clusters.

    Nobody uses linux or other open source operating systems.

    I could see the possibility of some of the clients migrating to a Linux solution running on the existing IBM s/390 and z/ mainframes, but this kind of thing would take years, and the beaurocracy is incredibly thick. Changing the -littlest- thing in the operation of these computer systems has to go through so many levels, it is truly ridiculous.

  • The bill's discussion in the RM video (Score:5, Informative)

    by pgpckt ( 312866 ) on Saturday May 10, 2003 @02:01PM (#5926803) Homepage Journal

    Discussion on this bill begins at 1:12:40 into the RM video.

  • Best tool for the job (Score:3, Redundant)

    by rf0 ( 159958 ) <rghf@fsck.me.uk> on Saturday May 10, 2003 @02:02PM (#5926808) Homepage
    Its nice to see OSS being pushed but it should be kept in mind that OSS isn't necessarily the best for every task. For example old Mainframes might be old, but they are reliable bugs are know and are good at what they do.

    M$ has a place on the desktop as if like most governments the machines are old but work anddo what the staff need. Everything has it place and that place is not necessarily the trash

    Rus
    • Again, no one is mandating open source or saying it is always the best tool available. This is an argument for fairness that could also potentially save cash-starved state governments some money.
    • The problem with your analogy is that in most cases, the software running on the mainframe was open source. In fact there are several cases where customers supplied mainframe manufacturers with bug fixes to the operating system.

      Note that the provision in the bill that states that a reason for chosing a proprietary solution over an open source solution does not exclude reasons such as "Our users are familiar with the operations of the proprietary solution and training them to use the open source solution wi

  • Better PR... (Score:5, Funny)

    by nate nice ( 672391 ) on Saturday May 10, 2003 @02:03PM (#5926813) Journal
    ..Would be to advertize it as free software. What lawmaker wouldn't bite at that. "I saw to is we stopped wasting hard earned tax payer money when a free alternitive is available, God bless America!"

    • Re:Better PR... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Timesprout ( 579035 ) on Saturday May 10, 2003 @02:10PM (#5926848)
      Read the article, they, as most people are aware the real cost is in support and maintenance. There is no such thing as free software. There may be no price tag attached to the aquisition of some Open Source software but it costs to support and maintain it. To say otherwise is highly disingenuous, if not down right untrue
      • Most people are not even aware open source software exists. This is what law makers thrive on, ignorance. And yes, it is downright untrue to say it is "free", but these are politicians we are talking about! The point is, they could make the argument that they would spend the same on support and get the software for free, which is what they are doing....but the point of a politician is to put spin on it to make themselves appear to be saviors of the land.
        • i think this is somewhat false. people who purchase software are in a lot of cases aware of OpenSource products, especially in a state that has a large budget to employ people to do in-depth evaluations of software.

          i think you'd be surprised how many states do use OSS and know why they chose it.
          • Oh, no doubt the people buying the software know what's going on, at least I hope so. They should obviously know the advantages and disadvantages of open source and commercial software. I was just making the point most tax payers/voters don't have a clue. Just like most people don't know of most usually independent, grass roots, independent movements. There are a ton of them I don't know about. I'm into computers, indie music, film, art and guitars but I'm sure there are great independent movements for

      • Re:Better PR... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Realistic_Dragon ( 655151 ) on Saturday May 10, 2003 @03:11PM (#5927142) Homepage
        "There may be no price tag attached to the aquisition of some Open Source software but it costs to support and maintain it."

        Right, like Windows installs itself, runs flawlessly, and every time it breaks a little man from Microsoft pops out of the air beside your computer and fixes it for you.

        If you took the money you didn't spend on buying Windows and stashed it in a high yield investment account, it would probably cover paying a large percentage of your IT staff, especially since you could fire all the ones doing nothing but running around and rebooting crashed PCs and wiping spyware by having to reinstall the OS.
      • Yes, but you'll need support regardless of whether you use OSS or proprietary (read: costs money). So I think that "support is needed" is a weak point against OSS and should be cancelled out by the support needed for proprietary.

        Trust me, a friend of mine's company decided to go with an Oracle DB and was talking about how it would let him do all this stuff out of the box, etc. I was working on a project of the same scale and used PostgreSQL. Needless to say, we both had consultants hired to implement t

      • Re:Better PR... (Score:3, Informative)

        by PotatoHead ( 12771 )
        You know a large part of that maintenance cost comes from recurring license fees and forced upgrade schedules don't you?

        These two things combined with the intergrated nature of Microsoft software raise costs more than you would think.

        Servers that require CALs compared to servers that don't are another area to consider.

        Also, it seems that justification of software happens mostly at the initial stage. Once a company is "in" they have a lot of leverage across their products to get more money more often thr

  • Affirmative Action for the Software Industry? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AlabamaMike ( 657318 ) * on Saturday May 10, 2003 @02:05PM (#5926825) Journal
    As much as people hate it, Affirmative Action was a necessary policy in America. Now we must undertake a similiar policy in order to overcome the barriers erected by large software corporations. I'm sure some (if not most) of us have read the corp's reaction to policies such as this. I think that's to be expected. The majority (in this case, the one with the money is the majority) doesn't like it when the minorities get a fair shot at what they always saw as "their world." Bills such as the one in TX are going to be needed in order to restore a level playing field in the software world. Expect to hear much outcry from MS, IBM, Sun, and other large corps from this one. Don't expect this to pass ... IMO, the lobbyists will see to it that it never will.
    -A.M.

    • Affirmative Action for OSS is an insult. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Alethes ( 533985 ) on Saturday May 10, 2003 @02:31PM (#5926960)
      Affirmative Action is saying that the group benefiting from the program would not be able to acheive their goals without help from the government. In the case of race and schools, it's saying that those races aren't smart enough to get into the college of their choice. In the case of business, it's saying those races are incapable of succeeding on their own. In the case of software, it's saying that the software will never be able to be up to par enough to compete against proprietary software on its own.

      If you were a ten year old playing basketball against a 20 year old, would you be more proud of yourself for winning the game if that other person was in a wheelchair, or if they were in good physical condition? It may be a more "fair" game, but the reward and satisfaction is minimal.
      Is that how you want to win?

      I sure hope OSS is given a chance to compete without being belittled by legislation that proposes to "level the playing field" by handicapping the competition. This legislation will only alienate the companies (IBM, Sun, Oracle) that have supported OSS with their commercial leverage, and make these OSS projects feel dependent on the government for their survival and success.

      • Re:Affirmative Action for OSS is an insult. (Score:5, Funny)

        by LX.onesizebigger ( 323649 ) on Saturday May 10, 2003 @03:21PM (#5927185) Homepage
        This legislation will only alienate the companies (IBM, Sun, Oracle)...

        So what you're saying is, we're going to see closed source supremacist movements? The Closed Code Clan? Interesting.

      • bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)

        by dh003i ( 203189 )
        This is not affirmative action. This is simply a bill which requires government officials to consider using FOSS and justify their reasons for not using it. It does not handicap proprietary software relative to FOSS. It simply requires these guys to consider FOSS.

        It is in no way analagous to affirmative action. It is analagous to requiring that colleges look at all of the applications sent to them, and not throw applications in the trash if "African American" is checked off next to race.
        • No, this is very similar to Affirmative Action in that to acquire proprietary software one would have to submit in writing a justification for doing so. No such justification would be required for considering and acquiring open source software. In many ways this is worse than AA in that laxzy IT admins might just go with OSS software simply because they don't want the extra hassle of writing a justification for software they'd rather be using.

          • Re:bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)

            by dh003i ( 203189 )
            Of course a justification for not using FOSS would have to be provided. Any time you choose a more expensive solution over a cheaper one, you should have to justify that choice. Duh. Your governor has to get from point A to point B. If he chooses to rent a McLaren F1 using OUR tax dollars, as opposed to using a Volkswagon, naturally he should have to justify that decision.
      • I love when people spout off on things they THINK they know, but have no real clue!! AA is simply a requirement that a group/business/school/etc that wish to recieve FEDERAL Government money reflect the community they are in if possible. This means that if you are in El Paso, Texas, employ 1000 peopl and none are Hispanic, you are not reflecting the community. If you have 10 openings come up(none are specialized) and still do not hire any Hispanics, it is apparent you are purposefully not hiring Hispanic
    • This isn't affirmative action for FOSS. This is requiring them to consider FOSS and provide justification if they don't use it. It does not require them to give any additional preference to FOSS over proprietary software.
    • Your post completely minimalizes the contributions of men such as Martin Luther King Jr., Susan B. Anthony and many others who have struggled for Civil Rights in America.

      Free Software written by a bunch of rich white boys is not in the least bit similar to the struggles that have taken place in the United States with regards to obtaining equal opportunity.

      Your post is insulting and insensitive.
    • Affirmative Action REQUIRED a percentage of peopel to be of a certain race. This is where Affirmative Action is a problem. The bill proposed here does not require that any percentage of software be open-source. It requires that they be considered. In effect, this bill does nothing except force people to open their eyes a bit. If open-source really is better, then this is all that is necessary.

  • Here is the evaluation (Score:5, Informative)

    by dracocat ( 554744 ) on Saturday May 10, 2003 @02:09PM (#5926838)
    Sec. 2157.003. DETERMINING BEST VALUE FOR PURCHASES OF AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEMS. "Best value" for purposes of this chapter means the lowest overall cost of an automated information system. In determining the lowest overall cost for a purchase or lease of an automated information system under this chapter, the commission or a state agency shall consider factors including:

    (1) the purchase price;

    Ok I think OSS has this one.

    (2) the compatibility to facilitate the exchange of existing data;

    This could definately be a problem. Depending on how the agencies' data is stored, especially since the assumption is that they are currently using Closed Sourse Software, it may be difficult to get the data out!.

    (3) the capacity for expanding and upgrading to more advanced levels of technology;

    I would definately argue OSS can win this one hands down.

    (4) quantitative reliability factors;

    I hope that by this they don t mean a report published by a software company about its reliability--because I don't remember the last time I read one of those for my OSS programs.

    (5) the level of training required to bring persons using the system to a stated level of proficiency;

    Doh... No matter what anybody says, this is my main gripe about most OSS software that I have used. Except for some exceptions, documentation is difficult to find, and User Interfaces were not well thought out. I think most OSS developers feel that once their software functions as they think it should, they stop! Again, maybe I have just had some bad experiences, but it seems like 90% of the OSS software I use falls under this description.

    (6) the technical support requirements for the maintenance of data across a network platform and the management of the network's hardware and software;

    Obviously OSS has this one beat.

    But the bottom line is that they agencies are only being told to do a TCO analysis before choosing software and that they have to consider OSS as well. Here is the real problem though. The person doing the TCO can do the analysis any way they want. So if somebody wasn't using OSS before, then when they go to anaylze the price/cost benifits they will simply use data that supports what they want to use.
    • "Doh... No matter what anybody says, this is my main gripe about most OSS software that I have used. Except for some exceptions, documentation is difficult to find, and User Interfaces were not well thought out. I think most OSS developers feel that once their software functions as they think it should, they stop! Again, maybe I have just had some bad experiences, but it seems like 90% of the OSS software I use falls under this description."

      I don't think this is likely to be a problem with the types of por
    • (2) the compatibility to facilitate the exchange of existing data;

      This could definately be a problem. Depending on how the agencies' data is stored, especially since the assumption is that they are currently using Closed Sourse Software, it may be difficult to get the data out!.

      Not necessarily: if closed data formats were impenetrable, nobody would bother with encryption; they'd just send their Top Secret messages as MS Word .doc files... :P

  • one change that should be made: (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rumpledstiltskin ( 528544 ) on Saturday May 10, 2003 @02:13PM (#5926867) Homepage Journal
    The third requirement, that agencies justify user of proprietary software over open source, needs to be challenged. why not force the agencies to provide justification for their decision, rather than justification for one branch of options? if you force the agencies to provide justification for acquiring proprietary software, the pencil pushers in the agency would be more likely to choose open source, but for the wrong reason. I don't know about other people here in Texas, but I don't want my state agencies to choose an open source solution that might be worse than a proprietary one if the reason is they would have to do more work justifying the proprietary software. If you're going to add more work, apply it evenly so the best decision gets made.

  • Weighing In (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Saint Stephen ( 19450 ) on Saturday May 10, 2003 @02:17PM (#5926890) Homepage Journal
    Open Source should not be "required". I can just imagine how some mid-level government manager would feel being forced to consider OpenOffice (for example) when he just wants to buy Office and be done with it -- word would start to circulate about his crappy experience, Open Source in general would suffer, and anti-OSS camp has more ammo.

    I get really scared when I start hearing people who believe in freedom so much they are going to force you to be free (at a metaphorical gunpoint). Just because *I* like that I can get workalike functionality of thousands of $$s of software, doesn't mean I should force people to use it. Free will rules. Of course, government should *want* to use free software anyway, to save our money. But don't force them.
    • it's not REQUIRING anything, except that OpenSource software be *considered*.
      • Open source software is already being considered. It's also being rejected.

        So now the OSS community wants to go one step forward in mandating, so they write up this bill which requires you to provide justification whenever you don't use open source software.

        Justification means paperwork. It also means a review committee most likely, what's the point of paperwork if nobody is going to read it?

        I know how government operates. I know how issues are spun. I know for a fact that if the bill stated justific
    • You have this wrong. Nothing is required at all save the consideration of Open Source software.

      Open Source software does not have full time paid lobbyists working the State for sales. Open Source is not *sold* it is used.

      Legislation like this basically says: "Before you spend our tax dollars on software, see if you can make the Open Source software work first."

      As for not forcing the government, that is a poor point of view as well. That is what we are supposed to do.

      You know, "By the People for the

    • Re:Weighing In (Score:3, Insightful)

      by theLOUDroom ( 556455 )
      I get really scared when I start hearing people who believe in freedom so much they are going to force you to be free (at a metaphorical gunpoint). Just because *I* like that I can get workalike functionality of thousands of $$s of software, doesn't mean I should force people to use it. Free will rules. Of course, government should *want* to use free software anyway, to save our money. But don't force them.

      If you don't want to use free software, fine, but government information is public property. This

      • Look, the gov't is special. They should be able to guarantee that they can retrive today's data in 100 years if they need to. They only way for them to do that is to have the source code for all the apps they use. You aren't obligated to be able to do that, so it doesn't really matter than much what software you use. You aren't storing any data that's my property.

        This last bit is poignant for me. I just spent the last three days writing a script to pull data out of an old Leading Edge Word Processor f

  • A major goal of most governments is to spend as little as possible, while still providing all their minimal requirements. These new rules _should_ be something that matches quite well with open souce software, as they better allow the use of outside help in making a better product, and even better allows other agencies to help pool software resources to create something better for all the public.

    Unfortunately, the way appropriations work, right along with the philosophy of spending as little as possible

  • Smoke and Mirrors (Score:3, Informative)

    by ipour ( 177686 ) * on Saturday May 10, 2003 @02:30PM (#5926953)
    This is a good try for open source, but I worry this will just be its feel good legislation. The guts of the legislation is in 2054.114 (b), which states: For all new software acquisitions, a state agency shall:
    (1) consider acquiring open source software products in addition to proprietary software products;
    (2) except as provided by Subdivisions (4) and (5),
    acquire software products primarily on a value-for-money basis;
    (3) provide justification whenever a proprietary
    software product is acquired instead of open source software;
    (4) avoid the acquisition of products that do not
    comply with open standards for interoperability or data storage;
    and
    (5) 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.

    Just focus on (1) and (3) - this is legalese for writing two paragraphs to say why you are selecting the proprietary system you want to purchase.

    The real issue for open source over proprietary is in the specifications for the bid, not in the selection process. Unless the open source product is responsive to what is in a bid, it doesn't need to be selected, no matter what this law says. In other words, if the bid solicitation is for a system that needs to meet the technical requirements of already existing products, it will be very difficult to meet those requirements for anything else.

    Thus, if you have an IBM system, it will be diffcult to switch to Sun, or from Microsoft to something else. Most state IT departments are tied in to specific product lines, and it's like pulling teth to get them to change.

    Bottom line, this will take years to have any significant impact. But as with any legislation, you need to start somewhere.

    • Re:Smoke and Mirrors (Score:5, Insightful)

      by praksys ( 246544 ) on Saturday May 10, 2003 @02:42PM (#5927018)
      Just focus on (1) and (3) - this is legalese for writing two paragraphs to say why you are selecting the proprietary system you want to purchase.

      Actually this is more important than you realize. If you are innocent of a crime then of course providing a solid alibi is the best way to get yourself off the suspects list. If you are guilty of a crime then providing a false alibi is often the worst thing you can do. Saying nothing at all is usually better. Why? Because as soon as you say something the police have something to work on, and at the very least will probably be able to show that you lied.

      Likewise there is no way to attack the government's reasons for acting if they do not tell you want those reasons were. A law like this effectively forces beurocrats to give an alibi. If they are faking it, then critics will have something to work on.

  • Another type of law (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I'd like to see a state submit a bill that bans proprietary file formats (i.e. Word, Excel) and communication protocals (i.e. File and Printer Sharing, COM) that lock you in and make you dependent on one vendor. Even if there was little chance that the bill would pass, I'd like to see Microsoft exposed for the greedy, anti-consumer monopolist that they are when they turn out in force to try to kill the bill. Microsoft would demonstrate how they want you to become completely dependent on them so you have no

  • This would be a "good thing". (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cornice ( 9801 ) on Saturday May 10, 2003 @02:53PM (#5927076)
    Here's why. With all the DMCA, Super DMCA and software patent legislation floating around it would be nice to have some open source laws on the books. Maybe some conflicts in legislation might help some law makers to see how these laws impact open source. "What do you mean we can't use our XYZ software anymore?" "What do you mean we can only get an update for XYZ software from a foreign FTP site?"
  • This is just silly! This is just as bad as forcing Texas to use Wintel products. The whole concept of Open Source rests on the idea of voluntary conscent. Can anyone give me a moral justification why this proposal is better than one where Wintel is substituted for Open Source?

  • I am Sheriff of the EFF-Austin Open Source Posse [eff-austin.org] and coordinator for our efforts on SB 1579. I want to offer some quick corrections to what is being discussed.

    The main problem is that a lot of people are discussing the content of and materials about the bill as originally introduced. In the legislative process, that is often an initial bid just to get the discussion going. It is not uncommon for bills to be amended--or even completely substituted--as they go through the process. That is what has happened here.

    Sen. Carona, the author of SB 1579, offered up a complete substitute. It has been accepted by the committee, replacing the original text. Therefore, the bill as originally written is off the table.

    The article links to my report on the committee hearing. In that report you'll find the complete text of the one-paragraph substitute, along with the reasons why EFF-Austin supports it.

    The substitute is significantly less sweeping in scope than the original. It is still valuable, and it is a great opening to see more open source in Texas government. In Thursday's hearing Sen. Carona stood strongly behind this bill, and stated that he planned to be back next legislative session with even stronger measures.

    Our wiki page [effaustin.org] has been updated with the latest information on SB 1579. Our sb1579 mailing list (subscribe directions on the wiki page) is the best way to stay informed on this particular issue.

    Thanks to everybody who has supported the effort to promote open source software in Texas state government.

  • Ya know... I always find it rather ironic that when there is news about open source software and whatnot, most of the time the audio provided, if available, is closed source. Real Audio, Windows Media et al.

    It would be cool if there were more open source audio streams for this kind of news...

  • most important for schools! (Score:4, Informative)

    by rjnagle ( 122374 ) on Saturday May 10, 2003 @04:29PM (#5927535) Homepage
    I have mixed feeling about these kind of bills, because truthfully it's impossible to impose computer solutions from above. If people weren't going to consider open-source solutions anyway, then they don't need to be cajoled to do so.

    The only exception I see is for the educational system (the universities, school districts). Because Dell and Compaq/HP are all located within Texas (as well as Apple in Austin), it's a foregone conclusion that Texas will use proprietary solutions, whether it be on the desktop or on the backend databases or servers.

    People I talk to in Texas education (excluding higher education) don't even consider open source as an option. Many students are taught in class how to use MS Word, Photoshop, Powerpoint, and that is seen as a desirable thing. Never mind that comparable software solutions exist, and that the money could be better spent on other things (teachers, etc). Teachers don't see that because they don't have to pay for these things. Instructional technologists don't see this because often the prices are discounted for learning institutions (which I suppose is good, but at what cost: why are we creating future customers for Adobe and Microsoft?)

    There is something to the argument that learning an application teaches students the basic concepts of spreadsheets, etc which can be applied towards comparable applications. But when comparable solutions exist (and they do), schools need to do more than provide the training so that students grow up and become good Microsoft customers.

    As long as open source solutions are not mandated, I see nothing wrong with making technology planners have to investigate open source solutions before submitting their budgets.

    • There is no OSS equivalent to Photoshop if you are designing for print. While Gimp works great for the web, it can't do print.

      Obviously, OpenOffice should be used for all of the MS Office applications. It doesn't have a spell checker, but then the students should be learning to spell and proof on their own, right?

  • Sure, this'll work. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by the gnat ( 153162 ) on Saturday May 10, 2003 @05:21PM (#5927772)
    For those of you who think that this bill has anything better than a snowball's chance in hell, I proudly present: the Texas Republican Party Platform [rlctx.org].

    These are not reasonable people. Don't get me wrong; I'm too conservative to be a good Democrat, and I dislike Nader just as much as the Texas GOP. I don't even hate Bush (though I have no respect for most of the rest of the administration, other than Powell). There are actually a couple of points in the platform that are reasonable enough. However, those fruitcakes embody just about every liberal nightmare, and they scare the living shit out of me. They're like John Ashcroft on methamphetamines. (Yo, Texans: no offence; we have theocratic lunatics in WA state as well.)

    Assholes like this are why I didn't change my voter affiliation years ago. The chances of them even understanding any of the technical issues involved, let alone lending a sympathetic ear, are simply pathetic.
    • Remember that policy was from 2000, things have changed.

      What I don't understand is how any self respecting male Texan could vote for a male cheerleader for a public office.
      • Remember that policy was from 2000, things have changed.

        Ummm. . . their biggest star got elected? If anything I'd expect them to be less moderate.

        What I don't understand is how any self respecting male Texan could vote for a male cheerleader for a public office.

        Or Mississippian - that was Trent Lott's main activity at Ole Miss.

  • public vs. private money (Score:3, Insightful)

    by timothy ( 36799 ) on Saturday May 10, 2003 @05:26PM (#5927796) Journal
    Money taken from me in the form of taxes (and the state of Texas has gotten quite a bit from me in the form of sales taxes in the years I lived there) has a different set of responsibilities attached than money being spent by a private enterprise. General Welfare, all that.

    The thing about using open source code, and in particular when necessary paying for improvements to it, is that it's hard to see when this does *not* benefit the general welfare, assuming that the State in its usual infinite wisdom does not care to save / not spend other people's money in the first place.

    Given that government agencies (hey, same is true at large corporations) like to spend money (and face disincentives to not spend at least up to their alloted budgets), let's say they're going to spend the same total money for particular tasks on either a) proprietary software + customization / integration and supportor b) Freely available software + customization / integration and support. That may be fanciful (despite optimism and propaganda on both sides), but I think it's actually a conservative guess.

    At the end of the day / project / whatever, there's some code (still in existence) and whatever additions have been made to it. If there are additions that are somehow tied to the state government itself (ties to certain databases or weird data formats, etc) and they're modular enough, there could even be some cross-project advantages.

    Also, one key advantage I've not noticed anyone mention in this thread is the fact that open source code (whether the FSF calls it Free or not) can be audited and justified a lot more easily than closed source apps. For one thing, I'd like to see tax-funded software be aggressively bid on; if code is open by policy, then improving it etc can be chased after by programmers / small software firms. It doesn't have to mean switching entire software systems ...

    timothy

  • Nail in the coffin (Score:3, Funny)

    by Stonent1 ( 594886 ) <stonent AT stone ... intclark DOT net> on Saturday May 10, 2003 @06:20PM (#5927999) Journal
    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

    Hmm would that be anything with XP or .NET in it's name?

  • OSS to stall the world economy ? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by stock ( 129999 ) <stock@stokkie.net> on Saturday May 10, 2003 @10:43PM (#5929010) Homepage
    > Obviously these states aren't considering the long-term results of Open Source Software and the effects on the economy, as more and more software developers are put out of jobs in favor of using free (as in beer) code.
    >
    > OSS is an OK idealist idea, but in practice what it will do is completely stall the world economy.

    The world economy is not stalled by OSS, i don't buy that. OSS is just a tool. Proprietary Software in the good days was also used as a tool/aid in the business process. Its only after large software vendors during the .com boom made proprietary software its own goal.

    Next microsoft got their dominance on the complete IT software market. The latest remarkable action of them was introducing License 6.0, To me that is the main reason the IT industry is on a dead-end now. Like its parked inside a dead alley.

    Another point for the stubourn stalling economy right now, is lack of trust and confidence in the current president of the USA. Not only inside the USA but also in the rest of the world people just don't know whats going to happen. So why would they show confidence and trust in the current president, the economy of the USA and hence the global economy?

    Now how can a free or almost free thing like OSS make any influence on the economy? M$ seems to have major problems? Well if they do, then i think License 6.0 is a far more important reason as OSS.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell

Close