Oregon's Open Source Bill Passess Committee Hearing

Cooper Stevenson writes "Oregon's Open Source Bill HB 2892 made it through the first General Government Committee hearing and is now scheduled for a work session. From here the committee will vote on the bill and, if it passes, will go to the Ways and Means Committee where it is expected to pass to the House floor for a vote. You may find the audio feed and the opponent's written testimony here. We are scanning and posting written testimony (especially the proponents for which there is plenty) as quickly as possible so check back in periodically."

Comments

Response content vs file size

[BusterB]

I thought that it was interesting that all of the Oregon proponents either submitted HTML or LaTeX generated PDFs, both of which were extremely fast-loading and good looking. The BSA's response looked like scanned-in faxes turned into a PDF, and the other opponents' responses were likewise bloated PDFs.

What does this say about the quality of the software used to create these responses, assuming that the authors all used the sorts of software they endorse?

One Good Arguement, and a Parallel

[MBCook]

Both the BSA and Software Choice (how's that for an oxymoron. Like the "center for reproductive freedom" or "tolerance", but that's another rant) do make one good point. This bill won't have software chosen based solely on it's merrits, because it requires OSS software to be looked at first. They have a good point that doing so it's open competition.

Or they would, if it wasn't for the fact that OSS can't promote it's self in the way that commercial software can. OSS can't invite you to your weekend in Tahiti to learn about your "options". OSS can't send you muffin baskets. OSS can't even give you your own suit who has nothing better to do than answer your every questions and seek out you and other customers.

There is a simple coralarry (sp?) here. This seems just like political elections to me. Many candidates can't afford to drop $1,000,000 to buy the mayor's office, or a senate seat, or whatever. So the government gives a small ammount to help them out doesn't it? There are laws demanding equal air time so that the candidates without that large bankroll have a chance right? What's the difference? How is this any different. There are laws to help small businesses get government contractors instead of it always going to the biggest company with the most money to blow on getting the contract. What's the difference between that and this? There are just laws to make sure that those who can't always speak out for themselves (often for financial reasons) still have a chance.

That said, does anyone else find it interesting how hard they're fighting this? They remind me of that Iraqi propaganda guy, the one who still says Saddam is winning. If their software is so superior, why do they need to fight this? OSS will just be found to be insufficant and the govt. will go for their stuff. I think it's clear who's on the run here. They're affraid that they can't win stictly on the merrits of their software; they're affraid the govt. might realize that their software is vastly overpriced for it's small benefits (in many cases), and not worth the extra money.

If their software is clearly superior for the task, despite the fact it's not free, they will win, and they don't need to worry. If it's just not worth the money for the extra features, or it's way overpriced, they should be scared and should fight this. Which one are they doing? Why not spend their money on making their product better? Why not not spend it and pass the savings on to customers (including the govt.)?

Why not accept that this might not be 1990 anymore, and that better things might exist that aren't commercial software. Why not adapt or die?

They can get around this easily too. Build a package AROUND OSS. If they do this, then they ARE OSS (arguable, at least for the bill's purpose) so they get considered first. But because they built AROUND the OSS product (and didn't modify it) then they aren't required to release all their stuff for free under the GPL. It's just like if a CD ripping program used MPG123 (or some other OSS if that isn't) to encode things. If it just calls the external program (which is shipped with the program) then they can still sell it but not open their thing. Make a userfriendly FRONT-END. That would be adapting. Still get money, get to use the law in their favor to get ahead of the competition, and it's better software. Plus they can charge less because they don't have to make the underlying parts. Everyone wins, right?

Oregon is Poor, Q.E.D

[peripatetic_bum]

Let's cut to the chase. I moved our here and was suprised to learn how poor Oregon is financially compared to some of its neighboring states like washington and california.

If the state can save some money with open source, trust me, they are going to go for it, because right now Oregon's budget is in the pits and it does not look like it is going to get better.

yes, Microsoft and the other can bribe someone and get this bill canned, but let me assure, the seed has been planted. I think we will see this bill fail, but see a couple of initiatve (voter lead) come out of it, that will pass