Using Closed Standards To Pay For Open Ones 371
An anonymous reader points to a story at NewsForge, writing "EGOVOS analyzes the recently passed South African OSS plan and proposes a great way to fund Open Source education and development until companies comply with open standards. Microsoft pays a 10% penalty until their products comply with open standards. That would be billions of dollars to Open Source to compensate for an unlevel playing field until it is leveled. All the policy guidelines for governments are worth reading. This looks like a workable plan from a credible group." Reader johndiii clarifies: "From what I have been able to see, the strategy document is 'proposed,'
not 'recently passed,' and is not yet official policy of the South
African government."
How do you define comply? (Score:5, Insightful)
Deeply conflicted (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Deeply conflicted (Score:5, Insightful)
If that's what they want to do, fine because MS would then have to use those same horrible standards. This would have the affect of making their software too difficult for themselves to maintain and/or making people not want to use it if there is another commercial or OSS solution that uses better standards.
2. The software industry as a whole would suffer. Open standards are nice for interoperability, but not so nice for new development. Most standards are not easily made extensible with any sense. If they are extensible that's a loop for MS to exploit. The bottom line would be that new development by MS or any other software maker would suffer. Additionally the OSS world will also suffer. Good things happen when new software is written to do new things. Using the blunt hammer of government to dictate how software works is not a good solution. As soon as government determines it can make MS conform to its technical "guidelines", how long will it be before individuals and not-for-profits are bound and regulated the same way?
I don't think this is the way it would [should] work. It would force MS to use Open standards. Open standards CAN be made extensible. But once MS [or any other company] makes extensions to the standard, one of two things will happen. Either A) Said company will keep those extensions private thereby making their version NOT an open standard so they'll have to pay the 10% premium. Or B) MS will then make those extensions available to everyone else, thereby leveling the playing field which is the result we're going for in the first place.
3. MS's customers will simply suffer an additional 10% or more price raise which they are still mostly required to pay. On the other end, myraid of companies will spring up to do OSS work, crowding out a lot of the good community that has sprung up. These organizations will suck up funding. The projects will also essentially be the same as commerical software projects minus closed source, and as a result software will follow commerical software trends - feature bloat, buginess, and using gimmicks to gain market share (and justify their continued funding).
If MS raises their prices, then people will be even more likely to at least look at OSS for their solutions. And if more companies start going towards OSS then that's not a bad thing either, even if they do start introducing feature bloat etc. It'll be bloated/buggy OSS which someone else can then trim and debug it and sell it themselves.
In the end I think this is a great idea that will benefit everyone, including proprietary software, as long as they at least use open standards.
Ender
Re:Deeply conflicted (Score:5, Insightful)
Huh? please tell me how simply publishing your file format for your new word processor would hurt you and make it difficult for you...
Open standards... I.E. Tell me the frick how your files are saved from your program! It doesn't hurt, hell it don't even tickle. and it does nothing but help everyone.
Re:Deeply conflicted (Score:3, Insightful)
My first reaction to your comment was:
"Maybe I don't want the files saved by my program to be opened by any other program. Don't like that? Then don't fricking use my program."
Of course, it's not black and white (is it ever?) In a well regulated market there's usually a provision for the regulatory organism to keep tabs on the "dominant
Re:Deeply conflicted (Score:3, Informative)
Right.
I am a consumer. Do I buy your's, where I am pretty well guaranteed I will never be able to get that BETTER word processor that's 100% compatible with your's?
Or do I buy an inferior word processor where I'm pretty well guaranteed that there will be BETTER and 100% compatible alternatives in the future?
Further, if y
Re:Deeply conflicted (Score:3, Informative)
Sure you can modify it. Simply issue a new version of your file format specification.
File formats can also be designed for extensibility, by making the specification modular. So then you can sometimes simply publish a new specification module.
It's the same principle behind "private" fields in Java.
Not really. Private fields are for stuff that users of a library shouldn't rely on because it might change
-- What he said (Score:2)
Re:Deeply conflicted (Score:3, Insightful)
Dealing with the government imarketplace" is a specialized skill that extremely few Open Source developers have. For example, Oracle was able to overcharge California millions because MySQL didn't even have the contacts to know that a bid was available. The people who know how to work the system are going to be the ones getting pieces of this new tax pie. And those people won't be Open Source developers.
Re:Deeply conflicted (Score:3, Informative)
There's a time and place for new ideas in software. It's called research and experimentation. Production data and especially public records in government should most definitely be stored in documented, standards-compliant file formats. To see why this is a good idea, see the Dead Media Project [deadmedia.org]. How many of your 20 year old computer files could you retrieve? Got an Apple II A
Re:Deeply conflicted (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Deeply conflicted (Score:2)
No matter what kind of a Libritarian you are, you must support some amount of tiny government. If the government wants to make an imposition, let it impose upon itself rather than the citizenry.
Added benefit is the market shift government creates itself in doing what it is supposed to do, only with a different set of tools. Kinda like the government going metric but 'letting' everybody el
Re:Deeply conflicted (Score:2)
Personally, I believe a more effective levelling of the playing field would occur if everybody who owns a Mercedes had to pay me (and other disadvantaged individuals) a tax of 10% of the vehicle's value annually until we can all own a Mercedes. Software is nice, but you can't pick up babes in it.
Re:Deeply conflicted (Score:3, Insightful)
A totally free market doesn't really work, you'd only have one giant company running everything (MicroAOLTimeWarnerSoft) so you do need some limited government interference, but this proposal is just fscked.
Heck, why don't we charge a fee on every copy of RedHat sold to give to Slackware, because they don't sell as many copies and we need to level the field. Or we could do like Canada* and tack a charge on CD-Rs, to be 'fair' to the RIAA, and then tax the RIAA on
Re:Deeply conflicted (Score:2)
Re:Deeply conflicted (Score:2)
Common sence, or at least my cynical sence, dictates that it increases at least 25% - 10% to the goverment, and another 15% to 'cover administration, losses and generaly piss you off'.
Re:Deeply conflicted (Score:2, Funny)
That's great! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's great! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:That's great! (Score:5, Funny)
Although this letter will come to you as a surprise from someone you do not know before but it was based on recommendation from a friend who advised me to invest in your country that I decided to contact you and introduce myself . My name is Hassan Adedeji, I was a special steward to the late CEO of the Open Source Group in South Africa, Chairman Sanni Abacha who died some time in 2003 while in power. I have worked in this organization for the six years. It was a great opportunity for me to achieved what I got today which I believe God is asking me to write to you for your utmost assistance. I also believe that the same God will bind my words with you on trust. Amen.
To be explicit, I have secured from Microsoft the sum of US$18.5million dollars and sent it out of the country during the time of the sudden death of the late CEO Chairman Sanni Abacha. The said amount was kept in the executive guesthouse for security logistics because of how the Open Source was at war with the SCO.
At that point, there was power struggle in the country in which people in better and strategic positions made away with substantial amount of money which I was also lucky to secure what I declared to you with confidence that, you will not allow anybody to know or hear about it because it is highly confidential.
I have a percentage for you in this transaction when you give me your words indicating your interest. I will also disclose more information to you such as the particulars of where the said money is kept and the certificate of deposit which shall be sent to you as well as other relevant document.
I have inform the security company that I have a partner who will call to confirm the safety of the deposit. Please send a reply through the above e-mail box.
Yours truly.
Hassan Adedeji
One word (Score:2)
I mean really, it's a government we're talking about here. It's not as though governments (on the whole, and often in specifc) have the best reputations for money going where it belongs, even if where it belongs is easy to figure out.
Re:That's great! (Score:2)
There's hardly one big open-source organisation entitled to all the money.
What about Software in the Public Interest [spi-inc.org]?
From the home page:
Re:That's great! (Score:4, Funny)
The Human Fund
Hmmmm (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hmmmm (Score:2)
It is legal. Your idea of legal doesn't apply universally. No doubt, in South Africa and many other countries, this is totally legal. It should be done in the US too (and Europe) as a way to force M$ to comply with standards rather than break standards.
Re:Hmmmm (Score:2, Insightful)
Basically, you can't force Microsoft to comply with standards. That's unfair to them as a company. You can, however, just not use their stuff until it comes in line with standards on its own. Otherwise, you're just as totalitarian and ev
Re:Hmmmm (Score:2)
Sure you can force M$ to stick to standards. If they can't compete on quality, then they lose, they don't get to compete on lockout due to some bizarro and otherwise pointless perversion of a standard. Why is that hard to grasp or see? If they cannot compete on quality, then they deserve to eat sh*t. Breaking (communication) standards simply to lock out competitors and is not quality, it is leveraging their monopoly to try to lock in users INSPITE of quality.
US laws are irrelevant. If M$ wants to sel
Re:Hmmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hmmmm (Score:2)
No, it is more like saying that if Ford or Chevy don't use standard power outlets (cigarette lighters), so that only Ford or Chevy brand accessories will work in the car, then they have to subsidize other accessory builders adapting to the nonstandard power outlets...
Wrong solution. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
That would be billions of dollars to Open Source to compensate for an unlevel playing field until it is leveled.
That isn't leveling the field for open source, it's tilting the field unfairly in favor of open source. If the technology can't compete on its own merits, why throw good money after bad to support it? Of course, I think open source software can compete on its own merits, so this measure is redundant.
It's just a high-tech double standard, and that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Re:Wrong solution. . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Governments need robust transparent data. Data formats that are primarily designed to create consumer vendor-lock don't deliver this. The idea is a just one but really is just a conservative variant of what really should be done.
If a product's resulting data cannot be easily and completely translated into some public format, no government has any business buying that product PERIOD.
Re:Wrong solution. . . (Score:2)
That's all well and good - and I don't necessarily disagree, even though Windows 2000/XP and Office are ubiquitous through the US Armed Forces for personal computer use. But there's a difference between a government saying, "We're only going to buy open source software," and saying, "We're going to tax closed-source software." There's good justification for the former; but there's no justification at all, IMO, for the latter.
Re:Wrong solution. . . (Score:2)
The basic idea is that people ought to be free to do what they want to do with their computers. I like Linux because it's been a great vehicle for pursuing that freedom.
But using taxes and regulations to push people toward Linux will diminish the freedom we have to do what we want with our computers. It's like destroying a village in order to save it, it just doesn't make any sense.
Re:Wrong solution. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the intent is to move proprietary software away from non-standard file formats and protocols, not to move people towards open source software. There is an important distinction there.
It is vendor-lock-in that should be avoided, and I think governments are right to support this.
Re:Wrong solution. . . (Score:2)
Thanks.
Re:Wrong solution. . . (Score:2)
The market will eventually kill off the companies and tools that no one uses.
Re:Wrong solution. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wrong solution. . . (Score:2)
Bottom line, if you blanked out the words "Open Source" from this proposal, you'd see it for what it truly is - an effort by a special interest to get the government to tax its competitors and feed the revenues back to them. Blech!
*A* solution. . . (Score:2)
Incorrect. (Score:5, Insightful)
Doing that is very similar to a sin tax on cigarettes, say, which many governments do as well. It is a method of encouraging behavior that a government decides is desirable.
One can certainly argue whether or not doing such things is a desirable function of government, but it is not just about tilting playing fields towards open source. It is about applying a tax to closed formats if they want to be involved with government.
Also somewhat similar, say, to some fees charged by the US government when someone like Lockheed fails to produce documents by a certain date on a government contract.
Re:Wrong solution. . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wrong solution. . . (Score:3, Interesting)
This is meant to keep open standards within government. If a company doesn't comply, then they get charged and the money goes to support OSS. Now, the money issue aside, fines for not supporting standards is a good thing. Imagine if people decided to make their own rules for the road. It is hard for any good software to compete against software that is using non-compliant standards which lock the entire system into that non-compliant standard. One of the biggest and most impo
Awful! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Awful! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Awful! (Score:3, Insightful)
The answer, according to history, is a resounding "No!".
Two problems (Score:5, Insightful)
2) Isn't this already happening in a less official way? If you're a non-US government, just mention Linux and you too can get a huge price break from Microsoft (probably even bigger than the 5-10% proposed non-compliance fee).
It would be nice if governments that wrestle such price breaks from Microsoft turned around and used those funds to generate additional open source tools, but governments have a lot of competing needs to deal with, and the freed up funds are more likely to go to any underfunded services (and any government service is going to have defenders that say that their particular niche is underfunded).
Re:Two problems (Score:5, Insightful)
What is open? Are you serious? There is a simple and well-layed out spec for HTML, XML, TCP/IP, etc, etc. Use them to spec and don't allow perversions that intentionally break intercommunication/interoperability. Or, if there is a compelling reason to break the nice standard, require that the addition/alteration be openly published so that the standard remains open and interoperability continues after the "improvement".
It's really not that hard.
Re:Two problems (Score:2)
XML is not a data format specification - it's a framework within which data format specifications can be built. Convert documents, spreadsheets, CAD files, and what-have-you to XML and they will be just as incompatible as ever.
Re:Two problems (Score:3, Insightful)
When I first heard of XML and documents, etc, I thought it was something like HTML, that is, if you write in standard HTML, then any compliant browser would see it just fine. I thought that if a document were to be XML, then any XML-compliant wordprocessor would see it/render it just fine. Then I learned what you mentioned about it not being a data specification...and it was totally lost on me why XML is of any value whatsoever. XML does nothing worthwhile the way HTML did/does. It does nothing worthwhi
silly (Score:2, Insightful)
Even if it passes, the government will probably be overthrown in another four months. A major victory this isn't.
Yes, you are silly (Score:2)
I don't like this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsft needs to fail as a business on it's own merits, not on the merits of extorting 10% of their money and using it to further the Open Source cause.
Re:I don't like this. (Score:2)
No, I don't like this idea at all. Let microsoft have their billions of dollars, it'll only give Linux a bad name. We can take over the world without it, thanks.
Re:I don't like this. (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally I feel this may be a very workable idea, superior to ones that have been done before:
Mandating open source is definately a bad idea because it is anti-competitive. Like it or not, publishing your code as open source allows competitors to take it and work off your efforts, so such a mandate disallows some forms of software development for profit.
Requiring "consideration of open source" just allows a beauracracy to rubber-stamp their purchases of Microsoft software. It helps nothing and may just employ more beauracrats.
Requiring "open data formats" is an excellent idea as it would level the playing field to all companies (both closed and open) instead of the current Microsoft monopoly of being the only one able to write software that can be used to read the data. But it runs into the problem of Microsoft's existing monopoly. Basically a government cannot function if it is not allowed to buy Microsoft products because huge amounts of data is in Microsoft format, Microsoft can use this fact to make any such law impossible to pass, and this may actually discourage them from publishing anything, since any published format would increase the chances of such a law existing.
This tax allows Microsoft software to be purchased so the government can work, but punishes it's use and gives both the buyers and Microsoft some incentive to switch to open formats. It is a usable verision of the "require open data formats" bills.
Sure (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, it will be billions of dollars to somebody.
I understand the appeal of reaching into someone else's pocket for money, but there are people out there far better at getting their fingers into every pie than open source developers.
The whole problem with dealing with a monopoly... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a nice thought, but I don't think you can just give someone a level playing field, all anti-trust laws to the contrary. Ultimately, OSS has to stand on its own merits, or it's not a competitor, it's just an also-ran.
eGovOS: Clean Hands (Score:3, Interesting)
Hey, why not make me pay 10% until I comply! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hey, why not make me pay 10% until I comply! (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is it absurd? Car manufacturers have to follow certain standards. Architects have to follow certain standards. Television producers have to follow certain standards. In order for any market to be fair and competitive, there are certain standards that always have to be met. I think that if a company or companies require reliance on some software, there should be an assurance that the software is standardized.
That is false analogy. (Score:2)
Action="enter set":Character="father"
Action="misunderstanding "
Action="hilarity ensues":Character="all"
So that my television would be able to parse it without having to use a proprietary Hollywood studio to act it out.
Don’t go changing ... (Score:3, Interesting)
âWe should all keep in mind though that there aren't any hard core greedy evil people in our industry. They are all basically good hearted people who chose trying to create a better society as their life's work at a substantial cost in personal income.
Not yet....;-)
With change accelerating we canâ(TM)t even have a âoenot yetâ last through the day. I dunno, that wink at the end seems a little more evil than I recall two hours ago...
Define compliance (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem comes in on what definition of compliance you use. It's as much a legal term as a technical one. A notorious rat hole. How often to people around here debate the various browsers' html compliance? I don't think this would work.
Not a workable idea (Score:2, Insightful)
1) First, this seems to conflict with principles of a free market. Without a doubt, Microsoft clearly has engaged in anti-competitive practices. But, aren't open source solutions at the point where it really is a viable option, if organizations take the time to implement it carefully?
2) Second, wouldn't an organization like Microsoft merely jack up negotiated costs on software to accommodate for the "loss" of a percentage of sales for monies moved to fund open
Profit (Score:2)
1. Create entity to enforce open standards.
2. Always state that M$ is non compliant.
4. PROFIT!!!!!
Embrace and Extend (Score:3, Interesting)
"conforming" and how "bribable" they are.
A good strong law that says "the government shall not store any data in any format that is not *completely* accessible via an open standard, and shall be enjoined from purchasing or using products that do not directly and naturally favor the open and publically defined means of storage, unless no such open product does exist..." make sense.
Penalty taxes dont.
Microsoft and similar have rat-ba^H^H^H^H^H^Hlawyers and marketroids who *live* to be so constrained so that when they are ruled "compliant" by whatever means they are then validated that ".doc format is as open a standard as can be, see where this government body said so"
etc. od nausium, ahmen... 8-)
Hm.... (Score:5, Insightful)
1. There is a part of me that likes the idea of "If you don't comply with the Open Standards, then part of your profit from your sale will go to finance a community that will." As it says, it levels the playing field. What would happen if the Open Office folks suddenly had $5 million to hire programmers and work on making Open Office better? How long until everybody supported XML based document formats that were all truly interchangable?
2. The big issue. Who the hell gets to decide on what the "Open Standard" we like is? Oh, sure, everybody's got documents/spreadsheets in XML - but suppose we decide that some display feature available in one Open Source Office system is the "standard Open Document" and the other isn't? I've seen companies all the time declare they follow "Open" standards - when they control it lock, stock and barrel. (It's Open because you can bitch about it in public.)
3. I don't mind seeing Government Money go into research grants that can then be used to finannce open source projects to fulfill XYZ needs, and the code/research being put under the GPL so everybody can use it (we're not going into a "Governments should GPL everything/no, they should BSD everything here - it's an example, thank you, move on").
4. If they truly want to penalize a business for using proprietary standards, stop buying their stuff. You'll be amazed how quickly a business goes from "Well, we need to do everything under Novell eDirectory because Government Office XYZ does it" to "Well, Government Office ABC says 'no more proprietary', and they've stated LDAP is the standard now - so code to that." Trickle down from there - the companies that support government follow it, so the companies that support those companies follow it, and on down the line.
So while the idea does make me go "Oh, yet - take money from the rich and give to the poor", I think there's better ways of going about it than "All your base [code] are belong to use!"
Re:Hm.... (Score:4, Insightful)
It doesn't matter who or what decides on the standard. So long as it is an open standard that anyone can follow and therefore know that their document or system will properly communicate with anyone else, regardless of platform. The market would still end up selecting the most favored standard but since it is openly published for any and all to follow, without restriction, no problem.
XML was decided upon as a format not by Open Office, nor M$, but by a separate standards body. Same with HTML. The standards were published so anyone was free to implement them and (the intention) know that it would be available to open/view/use by anyone else without problem.
The word *.doc format would be fine, so long as M$ fully published its specs so that anyone else could write to or open that format. The power of word doesn't come from the *.doc format, fer shits sake, it comes from the usefulness of the suite - carried on the back of monopoly leveraging, of course. No one uses word because that *.doc format is just so damn compelling. ANY format would be fine. Just require open publishing of the spec, this automatically makes it available as an open standard.
What a bloody retarded idea. (Score:2, Insightful)
Ooh, la de la, we all live in fairy-tale land.
I think I'm going to propose a system where all of the fruit loops working on Python and Java all decide to work on Perl 6 instead! La-de-la!
Oooooh, and I think that Dell should give 10% of their profits to Apple until they both have an equal share of the market
I'm sorry, but I disagree... (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft wouldnt be the only one to be paying for this. There are a hundred other firms working on OS projects. I mean, come on guys, lets be realistic!
And what's wrong with the situation as is? I like Linux's "underground movement" apect, it gi
Before people complain about the Gov. in business. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, no, no, no...... (Score:2, Insightful)
Let market forces decide who lives and who dies. If that is Microsoft, so be it. It is not government's place to support open source at the cost of other legitimate businesses.
In fact, this could be about the worst thing that
Re:No, no, no, no...... (Score:2)
If this truly was about a 'free' market - we wouldn't be talking about 'leveling the playing field', because monopolies like MS would not be allowed to use their market position to leverage monopolies in other markets.
Unless you're okay with unfair business practice and the flouting of federal laws.
MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
Agreed. 100% and totally. If it was Microsoft getting the favor, we'd all be screaming bloody murder.
We'd all be pissed if there was a 10% tax on Free Software, right? Let's see, 10% of...oh yea. LOL
Just read section 4 (Score:2, Insightful)
While government procurement policy should be neutral to ensure that governments do not introduce market distortions into the world economy, there should be an appreciation of the social benefits of fostering Open Source software development in a proper Open Source Government Policy plan
Wonder what functions I will find in the "Social Benefit" API.
This is industrial policy writ large... If we want to see the software industry go down the same path as the steel industry, this is the map to use.
What playing field? (Score:2)
Whenever I hear someone mention "10%" little bells in my head go off ringing "baksh
Effective OSS project revenue collection (Score:5, Informative)
Personally - I have purchaced both and use them extensively to get to everything from Office 2000 to Diablo II working on my Linux boxes at home and work. I like that with Winex, I purchace a 'subscription' for $5 a month, which I can discontinue at any time, which only cuts me off from updating my binary.
If Microsoft was willing to publish 'old' API suites for free (even ones for Windows 9x), it would be a step in the right direction. It would give the communities of Windows Application Developers a stand on the playing field for begining to develop stable applications in the new (XP / Windows 2003 Server) environment.
"Unlevel playing field"?? (Score:2)
How can it possibly be an "unlevel playing field" when many OSS products cost $0? What that says is that OSS products are so bad in most cases that they can literally not even be given away. The playing field is very level. Either you pay a lot for closed software that works out of the box, or you pay $0 for something that requires a good bit of work. Closed source companies shouldn't eb pen
How Stupid (Score:2, Insightful)
Stupid...dumb...idiotic...preposterous - those are just a few words that come to mind. The government should really leave businesses alone for the most part. Se
Standards have to be violated sometimes! (Score:2)
Also, many open standards stink to the high heavens.
And how do you differentiate between willful and accidental violation of a standard? Yeah, I know, you don't care as long as Microsoft has to pay
Too simple a definition of "open standards" (Score:5, Insightful)
This is too simplistic a view because it ignores patent and licensing issues. Is PDF open? Is Flash/SWF open? Is MP3 open? Is MPEG open? All those formats are "made known", and users can develop programs...of course they may have to pay a bit or submit to certain restrictions.
Now, ONE of the formats I listed there really is open. Do you know which one? I encourage you all to go to the Open Data Format Initiative [odfi.org] site and join the mailing list, where we are hashing out just exactly what an open format should be for government use.
- adam
This sounds like a great idea! (Score:2, Insightful)
Lessons in Equal Opportunity from South Africa? (Score:2, Insightful)
Bad Move (Score:5, Insightful)
If the author of the program doesn't want to show their code, they shouldn't be penalized for it. Furthurmore it will hurt the entire hobbyist/shareware movements which barely make any money to begin with. I hope this sort of communist approach isn't passed in North America, because both OSS/Closed-source programs have their benefits. The whole point of OSS was to have choice, not to have choice while penalizing the competition.
Wouldn't it be better to send the money direct? (Score:2)
You know what you'll see? A 12% increase in software prices. The government will be paying itself via the software companies minus a handling fee.
I suppose the idea is to get the tax revenue from NON-government spending, but in that case you're increasing the costs of the businesses and decreasing their revenues and thus the tax base...
I think the best thing is to have the governmen
Just like SCO... (Score:3, Insightful)
This reminds me of the problems surrounding SCO: they can't stand on their own two feet, so they sue every major company to acquire *their* feet.
I think this is an unfair move as I see others have already posted. Everyone knows that it's hard to make money off OSS (some of the questions to Hans Reiser asked about that) but there is no reason to penalize companies who can make money so that OSS can stands on *its* own two feet.
Whatever your stance is (for or against OSS or Microsoft - and, hey, there are many others to be fair), it's hard to deny that this is a foul play in the world of free markets.
Your right to be conflicted (Score:2, Insightful)
Red Hat found a way to make money off of open source and everyone is mad at them for being the M$ of Linux. This is simply a case of goverment trying to control the free market, not the free market controling itself.
Big deal. (Score:2)
Much more pertinent would be the public flogging of any person who deliberatly produced a broken implimentation of an existing standard - for example HTML (IE), Signatures (OE), Mail (Outlook)... {cont pg 2-100000}
*including the first BTW
We need a law! (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there a problem with the balance of FS and PS in the marketplace? Of course! But why must we instinctively rush to the government to solve the problem? We do we treat government as a god that we pray to for health, wealth and bountiful harvests?
If there is a bad law then by all means it is proper to eliminate it via a good law. If the FS/PS disparity is due to bad law, then let's eliminate that bad law. If it's due to obsolete bidding rules then let's change the bidding rules.
But this proposal doesn't do that. It's a prayer to the god'vernment to save the petitioner from the heathen proprietary hordes.
Level the playing field? (Score:5, Insightful)
OSS is free, MS products are expensive. In principle at least, that is a tremendous obstacle for MS. The main problems for OSS today are 1) making an OS product that is easier to install, use, and maintain than Windows XP, and 2) make OpenOffice easier to use than MS Office, and able to easily share files with it. This has to be true for the most naive and computer-phobic users.
Hello everybody! Those two conditions have not been met!
The idea of giving OSS a multi-billion dollar enema is absolutely terrible. It will guarantee corruption, bureaucracy, and irrelevance. OSS will become the IT equivalent of a corrupt Third-World dictatorship. When that happens, MS wins again.
And I want a pony. (Score:2)
Open Source vs. Open Standards (Score:4, Insightful)
To me, these are apples and oranges and the article refers to the terms ambiguously. I'm all for government supporting open standards, but I'm leery of supporting a particular development methodology such as open source. Security though, IMHO, is a valid basis for supporting open source (due to increased peer review).
One other question: who gets to determine whether a given software package "supports" a given open standard? I'm sure Microsoft would say that IE supports CSS 2, but that doesn't necessarily make it true. Likewise, there's probably always going to be something that somebody could use to say that it's not 100% supported. Seems to me there's a continuum here, and more definition is needed.
Is this Slashdot? (Score:3, Insightful)
In any case, my tried-and-true simplistic worldview is shattered. And I haven't had my mid-afternoon coffee yet...
Wrong Solution to a Problem (Score:4, Interesting)
The correct solution is to write the procurement to require that any and all software provide a complete specification of the data formats and the rules for display of data. Such a requirement seems reasonable in a governmental context where documents frequently have a lifetime longer than Word processing software. With the specs, future programmers would be able to decipher the important hieroglyphics even if the latest word processor won't.
If Microsoft software doesn't comply with the degree of openness you require, then simply don't buy Microsoft software.
That's all.
Buying Microsoft software and then assessing penalties against MS would be blatantly unfair.
Just make everithing that the gov buys open source (Score:3, Insightful)
The vendor can enter into non-compete agreements with the government and the code never gets out unless the vendor goes tits-up.
The government HAS to get the file formats and they HAVE to be entered into the public domain. Otherwise interoperability is impossible.
No compliance, no sale.
Simple, clean and fair. No preferential treatments for anybody and no more shifting software base costing billions every year.
I think this is an excellent idea (Score:3, Interesting)
... althougth I'm sure to get flamed for my opinion. So be it.
Why? Not because I'm an anti-Microsoft bigot, though in large part I am, and not because I'm an open source advocate, although I am that as well. The reason is because I believe strongly in the value of open formats and protocols. Open formats are valuable for the industry as a whole, but I think govenments have a *responsibility* to ensure that the documents they produce on the public's behalf not be locked up, beholden to one software vendor.
Since open formats and protocols are so valuable, how is it that we don't currently force all our software vendors to publish their formats and protocols? Because the world at large hadn't realized how valuable they are (and perhaps we should thank Microsoft for that -- it's their abusive behavior that has made it so poignantly clear, even to less technical people). Given that we now realize it's important, how do we go about getting there?
There are a few obvious options:
Option 1 is the purely libertarian solution. I'm fairly libertarian, so it's appealing to me. However, it will be a very slow-acting solution, because the current closed format options are so deeply entrenched. For a country like South Africa, though, there's another issue: Do they really want to export all that cash to the US?
Option 2 is just distasteful. It's certainly going to be massively inefficient in the short run, and it's just plain wrong not to allow companies to at least attempt to compete with their CFP approaches.
Option 3 is, of course, what they've proposed. It is slightly offensive to my small-government sensibilities, but it really is a small, measured interference. Unlike, say Affirmative Action, which affects companies and citizens and requires a significant bureacracy to oversee it, this only affects government purchases and should be trivial to manage. The idea of the government taking Microsoft's money and giving it to random groups of open source developers would be deeply wrong, and if that's what they're planning (the article doesn't say), then I'm opposed. But that doesn't need to be the case.
In the short term, this action will increase government expenditures on software by 10%, which probably equates to a lot of money. That's a bad thing. In the long term, however, putting competition back into the picture will save them far more money. The competition isn't necessarily even OSS vs CSS -- if the government cat get OFP software, it doesn't matter if it's also OSS, because at least then other companies will be able to compete with the entrenched competitor, who will then be forced to compete on features and on price, as it should be.
The slickest thing about this proposal is that, unlike, say, Affirmative Action, it phases itself out automatically as it becomes unnecessary. As more OFP software becomes available (whether OSS or not), the government will buy less and less CFP software, reducing the "taxes" paid in. Eventually, the government will be using all OFP software, whether closed or open.
Here are some of the concerns I've seen in comments, and my responses:
Who are the open source developers who will get the money?
I think this one's easy to solve; the government should hire the developers and make them available to all of the government organizations, to build whatever kind of software is needed, with the caveat that all of the code will be open source. Why the requirement that it be open source, rather than just open format? Mainly because that way these developers can leverage the broad base of OSS that exists to make themselves more productive.
This (a) provides a valuable service to the government organizations who can get nicely customized software that they otherwise couldn't get at all, (b) keeps that software m
Re:Dear God (Score:3, Informative)
Re:In other news (Score:3, Funny)
It has come to our attention that you used the phrases "Bill Gates", "Slashdot", "SCO" and "pigs fly" in your recent post.
We represent www.pigsfly.com, and your unauthorized use of pigsfly's trade secret mark copright thingy is completely unacceptable. Please correct this infraction immediately, or we will tell Bill Gates, SCO, and Slashdot.
Or something! Muahahaha!
Re:In other news (Score:3, Interesting)
According to this googlefight [googlefight.com], Bill Gates is more popular than Linus Torvalds on Slashdot.
Re:Are half the people on slashdot stupid? (Score:2)
I am not sure how I feel about this law, but the basic principle of making sure there can be competition is sound. The idea that open, common standards foster this is also sound. Penalizing monopolists who try to undermine these standards, and thus eliminate the possibility of compitition, is also sound.
I am just not sure that this will achieve that.