Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

"Software Choice" Campaigns Against Open Source

Posted by timothy on from the doublethink-different dept.

Verizon Guy writes: "News.com is reporting that a group called The Initiative for Software Choice, led by the CompTIA, but backed primarily by Microsoft and Intel, is lobbying against Open Source-only laws in for example, the State of California government and the government of Peru. While their goals don't specifically mention open source, they do mention that publicly-funded research should steer clear of licenses such as the GPL. Interesting read."

4 of 398 comments (clear)

  1. Campaigns Against Open Source...? by jukal · · Score: 5, Interesting
    How exactly are they campaigning against open source? To me it says rather - if not very - neutrally that what they want is that open source, semi open source, and closed source and their licensing methods should co-exist. Also, I share their opinion that it would be very stupid to make organisations choose from only what is available under open source.

    I do think that it is a big plus for many (or most) products if it is an open source one. Even if it was true in all cases, some closed source products can still be superior. There are cases and specialist areas in which development under closed source can be done with bigger and better resources, which eventually results in a better product.

    ...and I must say that I prefer open source a lot... and still I think these proposed open source -only laws are utterly stupid.

  2. Open file formats by nuggz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think the idea is fully documented file formats that we can edit with alternate applications.

    I don't think we should legislate free software, because quite honestly if MS has the best solution for that task, we SHOULD use it.

    What we should have is that all file formats should be clearly documented and have a non discriminatory royalty free, patent free licence to use in competing products. Then there wouldn't be an arguement.

  3. Re:No story here... by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If open source costs more in man hours (don't be foolish....you know as well as I it can), retraining and possibly hardware, it could very well mean it could cost more than say sticking with Microsoft or IBM OS/390. Cost is more then just the cost of the software. That said, I do prefer Open Source, but not necessarily because of cost.

    With Open Source, the answer is always out there, usually. It isn't always so when trying to navigate a vendors website. With Open Source,if Red Hat, SuSE or say Debian doesn't have an answer for your problem, someone else usually does!

    I am against Open Source only laws because I want to choose what is best for the situation in question. MySQL is not yet an acceptable replacement for a well done installation of Oracle. Also, when storing massive amounts of info in a database, I want someone to guarantee some sort of stability or performance. I want something others of used (yeah I know, others have used MySQL, but I still would not trust it with a critical database) and has been proven. That's one case. In others, well, I hate to say it, others use microsoft. Granted I know that there are word processors on Linux, but there are certain things you do. You don't want to retrain everyone on a Word Processor....ever. My point, Open Source only laws, while good for Linux and in my opinion a great number of things in the public sector, would prevent you from going to something that may be new and revolutionary. Choice between Open Source and Closed Source products should be maintained. Saying your not being fiscally responsible by not choosing open source is like giving the coffee away for free and having to pay 10 bucks for the cream and sugar. If you can't get all three (ie someone who's already there and isn't going to cost more, who knows Linux and available hardware are the cream and sugar) for free, it ain't worth it.

    --

    Gorkman

  4. Call me a cynic... by Woodie · · Score: 5, Interesting

    OK -

    call me a cynic. But, this whole freedom of choice thing can't be underscored. GPL is great, if you want to put your software under it, feel free to do so. Just don't demand that I do the same. Information doesn't want to be free. Information doesn't _want_ anything. Information just is. People want information for a variety of purposes.

    Unfortunately the US government is somewhat restricted from being a copyright holder, and patent holder for good reason. As if the government doesn't have enough power already, what with laws and everything... Try to imagine if they could be patent holders and copyright holders. What better way to cripple free speech and innovation?

    And all this jazz about China using Linux. They're using you alright. China is not adopting Linux out of any altruistic sense of empowering the people. They are adopting it because it is not controlled by a corporation which is based in a potentially hostile foreign nation. China using Linux isn't about software - it's about politics. "Oh, look - we can get free software & brownie points, while divesting ourselves of foreign interest."

    Sure, Linux may be the next best thing since sliced bread. GPL might be the next best thing too. But keep in mind that some of us still like to buy our loaves of bread whole, and slice them ourselves. Choice is good. Forcing your brand of "freedom" down anyone and everyone's throat == bad.

    I can understand you all wanting the governemt to use OSS systems in building government systems. In fact, I'd lobby for that too. On a business, and social level it makes a lot of sense. But, guess what...? Sometimes OSS isn't always the right choice for the job. Shoehorning the wrong tool into doing the job is a big mistake. Options need to be considered rationally - not religiously. Of course, if you're used to kludges solving your problems - that might be OK.

    Bah!