[aclug-L] Re: open source in state governments

[flimzy@xxxxxxxxxx]

>> Personally, I think legislation that requires the use of or
>> consideration of OS software is silly--and a bit hypocritical.  In an
>> open-source mindset, all options should be given equal opportunity,
>> and the best option should (eventually) win.  We don't want
>> legislation that requires the use or consideration of software that
>> falls under any other category of licensing, do we?  So why do we want
>> it for OS software?
>> Imagine legislation that required use/consideration of shareware.  Or
>> Bannerware.  Or "Free for non-commercial use" software... etc.
>
> I disagree when we are talking about publicly funded projects.  Private
> business can buy whatever they want.  I believe that our tax dollars
> are best spent funding software that gives organizations the ability to
> have choices.

And that's my point... There's no reason to favor, through law, Open
Source, or any other type of software.  If there is legislation to
dis-favor OpenSource (or other license types), I would be in favor of
removing such legislation.
But sometimes, the best software for the job is NOT open source, and to
tell our gov't they need to use OS software would be in error as well.

> Kansas has a law that unfortunately I can not find a link to at this
> moment, that forbids government agencies from using services/products
> from companies that have been convicted of Anti-trust or monopolist
> laws...where do you suppose this leaves Microsoft?  I'll tell you
> where..the same place they have been in for 10 years (locked in,
> because radical changes in organizations can cause chaos.).

That's an interesting law... I wouldn't be surprised if it was challenged
in court if the state ever refused to use Microsoft (or other) software on
that basis.  Seems a bit like a double-jeapordy issue to me.
-- Jonathan



-- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,
visit http://www.complete.org/cgi-bin/listargate-aclug.cgi