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

But it doesn't say how hard they must consider it

[Anonymous Coward]

"Hmm, Open Source? Nope. Send in the guy from Microsoft with the money-filled briefcase!"

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.

Re:The Texas Legislature

[webloser]

the legislature meets for a 120 day period once every two years, not for one day every other year. The governor can also call a special session for 30 days anytime he wants IIRC.

Deja Vu!

[netsharc]

A repeat!!!! Oregon, Texas, what's the difference!?!

OK, just being sarcastic, let's hope we see 50 or so more of these.. :)

Re:Deja Vu!

[Cyno01]

Dont forget our largest state, Canada.

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.

It will save Texas more money...

[Anonymous Coward]

so they don't have to worry about the cost of operating the electric chair.

What is the current policy?

[dirk]

With some form of this same bill being considered in several states, I have to wonder what the current policy is? Is there something in the current policy that would prevent open source from being considered? Or is it that this is just a way to ensure it is considered in every situation? If it is the latter, I'm not sure it's such a good thing. If there is nothing stopping it from being considered already, why do we need something to push for it to be used, as it would be on a level playing field with other software. I don't thing OSS should receive any more "special" consideration than any other product. After all, we would rail against a bill requiring MS products to be considered.

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:What is the current policy?

[TopShelf]

"Unfortunately, requisitions are always written so that only the program they want will work"

That's an awfully broad statement - any vendor selection process that starts from the vendor's perspective is doomed to budget bloat and ultimate dissatisfaction. What is really needed is not a mandate that such-and-such software is considered, but more of a mandate that governments (just like businesses) need qualified systems analysts to drive these decisions. What's often lacking in government is the combination of technical and business expertise to make the proper match between requirements and technology.

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.

It's funny

[pclminion]

Funny how the economy goes in the toilet, and all of a sudden state governments start realizing that Microsoft is really a band of highway robbers. And this isn't the only announcement in recent weeks that a state is seriously considering switching things over to Open Source software.

I wonder if Open Source could contribute to an economic comeback in any way.

Open standards most important

[bluGill]

I don't mind them picking any closed source solution so long as it has sufficant functionality and guarenties so that they know it will work right. However I do have a problem with ANY solution that is not open standard based. microsoft doc format works okay, but it limits your ability to choose a compititor. In effect your next bid for who supplies word processors either has to have perfect microsoft compatability, or you need to account for a team to open every current document and save it in a standard that the new program can read.

By contrast if they require an open standard as default, today they can use Word, and tommorow switch to wordPerfect, and next year Staroffice might win the bid for who supplies word processing software. Even better than can be a mixture. Most people would be served just fine with kword or openoffice, but a few people need as use those features in microsft word that isn't provided in the alternatives. With a standard file format you mix and match as you wish. Today you can already provide Photoshop to those who really need the best, and Gimp to everyone, since picture formats are open. Word processing formats should be too.

Even though I mentioned file formats above, that isn't the only place where open standards are better. At walMart I can buy several different memory card readers. Some support 3 different formats, some 5, and some 6! If you happen to buy the 6 port version you can read most formats today, but not all. By contrast there is already a good open standard memory card interface: USB, and every new comptuer has it so there is no need to buy any adaptor. (Some of the memory cards read by the reader might be considered open, but they are not everywhere so it is hard to call them standard. This should be a considereation too)

Interestingly enough

[inode_buddha]

Many other countries seem to have similar considerations on a nation-by-nation basis, whereas the USA, if it even considers the question, does so on a state-be state basis. It's probably the state-by-state basis that will effect any actual change. This, not even on its own merits, but upon financial merits.

[slightly OT] I wonder how US and State Gov't entities reconcile themselves with their own laws and decrees WRT OS-level stong encryption in such a scenario?

Exactly... to have more control over your own dest

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm the network manager for a medium-size city government in Texas. Although city govts are distinct and separate from the state, we can still buy our software off of the "state contract" prices from "QISV" vendors without having to go thru the RFP/open bidding process.

Half a decade ago we embarked on acquiring only "vendor-supported turnkey software apps" and ditched our in-house written systems (mostly old mainframe stuff) because it was perceived to be more cost-saving route, rather than having to keep our own expensive tech staff on payroll. What we've actually learned over the years is that "vendor-supported turnkey apps" is a farce. The vendors corrall and herd you into a corner where they want you, the support prices skyrocket overnight while the quality of tech support plummets. They force you onto a never-ending upgrade gravy-train which only benefits their bottom line. They do not keep knowledgeable support staff because that is a cost center to them, you get to wait on hold forever only to get to talk to a bubblegum-smacking teenager with a condescending attitude who barely can parrot back the owner's manual to you and cannot solve any real technical problems.

In the end, running complex computer systems costs a lot of money, whether you pay thru the nose for "vendor supported turnkey apps" or keep your own staff of technical experts it eventually costs the same in the long run. When you do the latter, you are in much more control of your own destiny, you upgrade if-and-when you decide, not when the vendor decides. You can customize the system to fit your own internal business needs.

I am using open source software everywhere I possibly can in my organization. We're feeling the budget crunch too, and the purchase cost savings of open source is definitely popular with my managers, though they are concerned with "who will support it", well the answer is the same people who would be supporting the "vendor-supported turnkey apps" --- the city's own I.S. staff, because whoever the commercial software's "owner-of-the-day" (the companies are constantly getting bought out by other companies) is generally incompetant anymore.

Re:Why is this required?

[jc42]

Of course, pretty much all governments have laws requiring competetive bidding for government contracts. So you'd think this would be fully redundant.

But it probably isn't. There are a lot of examples of only "commercial" offering being considered.

Something I've seen on a number of web projects is a concerted effort to judge which web server to buy. While they're putting out a lot of effort installing and testing demo versions of commercial servers, I'll walk over to an idle machine, download apache, untar and compile it, and have a demo running in 15 or 20 minutes.

Usually the reaction to this is exasperation. Apache wasn't in the list of competitors, and wasn't to be tested. After all, it doesn't have a price, y'know, and there isn't an Apache Inc to buy it from, so how could they ever compare it with the other servers? The rules are to consider competitive bids, and apache didn't make a bid, so they don't have to consider it.

But in each case, the developers went with my apache server, because it was up and running. The management found they had serious opposition on their hands when they tried to get people to switch to the commercial server that they chose. The developers wanted something that worked, and had little patience for an expensive server that needed a constant babysitter.

In all seriousness, this is how things get done in many organizations. Few managers anywhere want to decrease their budget by using something that's free. It doesn't matter whether it's government or business or industry or whatever; there's a strong prediliction among managers to simply not see "free" things.

Good idea on paper but....

[jrwillis]

As an I.T. guy/admin for a Texas agency this isn't going to happen. First of all, at least 75% of the tech staff at your average state agency isn't going to be able to learn to support open source software. It's not like in the real world where a good number of people in I.T. are interested in learning new things. Where I work there are techs that are possibly going to retire simply because we're going from Win 9x to 2k. Now if that throws them that much what do you think is going to happen when you put a Linux/BSD box in front of them? Also, it's painfully obvious that the people that run these agencies could care less about saving money. For example, we paied $300 to have a cpu fan replaced in a computer the other day because if we went out and bought one ourselves and installed it we'd be in violation of a contract with the harware repair vender. I deal with things like this every day and there's nothing that can be done about it.

Zingers in the proposed bill

[john.r.strohm]

There is a beautiful zinger in the first section of the proposed bill. Paraphrasing slightly:

"For all new software acquisitions, a state agency shall 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."

If memory serves me, Microsoft's click-wrap licenses, and the Windows XP activation process, and their auto-update processes, do EXACTLY that sort of thing.

Also note that the bill's definition of "open source software" requires "(E) freedom to make and distribute copies of the software; and (F) freedom to modify the software and to distribute the modified software under the same license as the original software."

This would seem to exclude Microsoft's "Shared Source" hogwash.

Keeping govt money local

[mgkimsal2]

I've seen some posts on here saying that 'it won't save any money', 'training costs are higher','support blah blah', etc. Using open source in some cases may save money. In most cases, however, it'll *shift* money for projects. Money that may have gone to licensing fees may be shifted to larger training budgets or more custom development work. Who will provide those services? More than likely it'll be local companies, helping to create/sustain jobs in the respective areas.

OpenOffice is a good example. While it's not a perfect replacement for MSOffice, in some organizations, it can serve reasonably well. Let's say a dept of 40 people will be upgrading from Office 97 to Office XP @ $100/seat. That's $4000. Migrating to OpenOffice for those 40 people may require days of retraining, but in reality there'd be some retraining (formal or informal) for some of those people anyway even moving to Office XP.

So, migrating from Office 97 to anything else will require *some* training. You can have more formalized training, and pay someone local to come in, or shift the bulk of that money out of the region, yet still have to provide training for some of the staff (perhaps during lunch breaks, or overtime, or whatever).

That example isn't perfect, I know, but the local services factor *needs* to be played up. Money isn't a zero-sum - it floats around in transactions. The more of those transactions a state can keep to itself, the better.