Texas Bill Would Require Open Source Consideration

Skapare writes "The Texas Legislature now has before it a bill ( ASCII text here, PDF here), submitted by State Senator John Carona, to require the state to consider open source and open standards as part of the acquisition of software. Texas, like many other states, has a budget crisis going on. If this passes, I believe it could help the state save a lot of money. Texans need to make sure their state representatives and senators know they want this to pass."

Comments

The Texas Legislature

[Anonymous Coward]

only meets once every two years. While I would love for a bill like this to pass, I am afraid that this bill won't be big enough to get the notice and attention it would need. Most likely it'll be swept aside in favor of using the available time for more pressing issues.

It could save a lot of money

[mrpuffypants]

....but changing over from a commercial vendor to open-source always carries with it a good deal of costs in converting user data, systems, admin training, etc.

Still, I'm going to call my people in Austin to support it.

Re:It could save a lot of money

[timeOday]

changing over from a commercial vendor to open-source always carries with it a good deal of costs in converting user data, systems, admin training, etc.

I think often the question is how to migrate away from some antiquated homebrew DEC or mainframe setup. In that scenario, the transition to Oracle isn't real cheap either.

And if you're going to invest in training, it's better to invest in something that's always available, rather than something you might not have the money to own next year, or which might be taken away through forced upgrades or discontinued support.

Re:It could save a lot of money

[mpe]

....but changing over from a commercial vendor to open-source always carries with it a good deal of costs in converting user data, systems, admin training, etc.

As does sticking with a commercial vendor who likes you to "update" according to their schedule.

Re:What is the current policy?

[loucura!]

"After all, we would rail against a bill requiring MS products to be considered."

Why? It just says that they have to be considered, not that they have to be used. Requiring consideration is very different from requiring usage.

Requiring usage would be anti-competitive, but requiring consideration is pro-competition. Unfortunately, requisitions are always written so that only the program they want will work, so even if you consider using a competitor, it won't fit all the requirements for the requisition.

Re: Money is the reason all right...

[Glasswire]

...but not necessarily because of the Open Source cost advantages. If I were in purchasing for any state, national govt (or corp) for that matter, I would get mgmt to talk loud and publically about how we're considering Open Source. Even if I had no real intention to use it. Why? Anyone who tells you that Microsoft licence prices AREN'T negotiable is ill-informed or naive...

Re:What is the current policy?

[wfrp01]

I don't thing OSS should receive any more "special" consideration than any other product.

Do you think public forms and documents should be distributed using proprietary formats, thereby compelling taxpayers who expect to benefit from their existence to aquire the same proprietary software? Do you see any irony in using proprietary software to manage the affairs of public institutions? (hint: proprietary is the opposite of public)

Of course we would rail against a bill requiring MS products to be considered! But this is not a apples to apples comparison. Apple to Microsoft might be (less so lately). OSS/Free Software to Microsoft is not.