Slashdot Mirror
Oregon's Open Source Bill Stalled by Microsoft
Wanker writes "Previously on Slashdot we read about an
Oregon bill that would require government agencies to consider Open Source software in addition to whichever software they would normally consider. Unfortunately, House Bill 2892 is
getting stalled by "stiff opposition" from such unsurprising places as Microsoft. All you Oregon Slashdotters, it's time to call or write your representatives."
72nd OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2003 Regular Session
.
NOTE: Matter within { + braces and plus signs + } in an
amended section is new. Matter within { - braces and minus
signs - } is existing law to be omitted. New sections are within
{ + braces and plus signs + }
LC 2937
House Bill 2892
Sponsored by Representative BARNHART (at the request of Ken
Barber)
SUMMARY
The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the
measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject to
consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor's
brief statement of the essential features of the measure as
introduced.
Requires state government to consider using open source
software when acquiring new software. Sets other requirements for
acquiring software.
A BILL FOR AN ACT
Relating to software acquisitions by state government.
(1) The Legislative Assembly finds that:
(a) The cost of obtaining software for the state's computer
systems has become a significant expense to the state;
(b) The personnel costs of maintaining the software on the
state's computers has also become a significant expense to the
state;
(c) It is necessary to the functioning of the state that
computer data owned by the state be permanently available to the
state throughout its useful life;
(d) To guarantee the succession and permanence of public data,
it is necessary that the state's accessibility to that data be
independent of the goodwill of the state's computer system
suppliers and the monopoly conditions imposed by these suppliers;
(e) It is in the public interest to ensure interoperability of
computer systems through the use of software and products that
promote open, platform-neutral standards;
(f) It is also in the public interest that the state be free,
to the greatest extent possible, of restrictions imposed by
parties outside the state's control on how, and for how long, the
state may use the software it has acquired; and
(g) It is not in the public interest and it is a violation of
the fundamental right to privacy for the state to use software
that, in addition to its stated function, also transmits data to,
or allows control and modification of its systems by, parties
outside of the state's control.
(2) The Legislative Assembly further finds that:
(a) The acquisition and widespread deployment of open source
software can significantly reduce the state's costs of obtaining
and maintaining software;
(b) Open source software guarantees that its encoding of data
is not tied to a single provider;
(c) Open source software ensures interoperability through
adherence to open, platform-neutral standards;
(d) Open source software contains no restrictions on how, or
for how long, it may be used; and
(e) Since open source software fully discloses its internal
operations, it can be audited, at any time and by anyone of the
state's choosing, for internal functions that are contrary to the
public's interests and rights.
(3) Therefore, it is in the public interest that the State of
Oregon consider using open source software in its public
computing functions.
Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
SECTION 1. { + (1) As used in this section:
(a) 'Open source software' means software that guarantees the
user, without further cost:
(A) Unrestricted use of the software for any purpose;
(B) Unrestricted access to the respective source code;
(C) Exhaustive inspection of the working mechanisms of the
software;
(D) Use of the internal mechanisms and arbitrary portions of
the software, to adapt them to the needs of the user;
(E) Freedom to make and distribute copies of the software; and
(F) Modification of the software an
_____ "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." -- Orwell
It appears that the Oregonian read a little too much into the fact that the bill wasn't discussed in the General Committee today. Here's part of a post that showed up on the Portland Linux User's Group this evening (Note: Representative Drummel is a committee member and supporter of the bill):
....
"Behold! Representative Jerry Drummel, at 16:52PDT, calls me back.
I spoke with him for about 10 minutes. To summarize:
* He scratched out the discussion of the bill in the general committee because he wasn't happy with the amendments. Two issues:
- Issue with the "where as" clauses. I didn't know what this meant.
- Issue with parts of section 2, did not go into details
* He has been working with Barnhart and and Ken Barber [co-sponsors of the bill] since the bills creation.
* He is the one who invited Riverdale and the MESD down to testify.
* Once the bill is finalized and approved through the General committee,
he would be a yes vote.
So, I don't think the bill is dead, just standard government bureaucracy. I've never had a representative call me back though, which
was impressive. Then again, maybe I'm easily impressed when it comes to
legislature. "
So it would appear that The Oregonian was a bit premature in declaring the death of this bill. It looks like it will go through some more revision, though.
I've got Linux, OpenBSD (firewalling a couple of Winbloze servers), and Netware servers on my network. A couple of Linux workstations and 150 Winbloze boxen. But, those Windoze boxes are all running Mozilla and OpenOffice, and I certainly wish some masochist would port Evolution to Windoze, cause then I could get rid of Eudora, too (no Outlook for me ;-) )
We're in the process of dumping Office, because of the proprietary file formats, and I've got test users right now using OpenOffice who don't realize that it's *not* Office. If only some true masochist would port Evolution to Windoze, as I'm one app away of being able to dump Windoze from the desktop as well. I will personally *never* buy something when I can get an acceptable substitute for free (and the folks who deal with my IT budget like this a lot).
Our school districts are now also making heavy use of open source, especially around Portland. Down here towards Eugene, OpenOffice has also been popping up on Windows machines in schools, and there are beginning to be a number of Linux Terminal Servers popping up in the districts. The state governments web servers are mostly running Apache. At the university I work at, there's linux all over on the desktop and in server space. Most public access computers here are Linux thin clients.
The people in charge of procuring IT in the state Department of Administrative Services are proponents of this bill and testified for it, as did IT departments at a number of school districts.
Use of open source software in the public sector in Oregon isn't something that's a far-off dream. It happening-- now. This law would more or less codify the reality of present-day IT procurement in the public sector here. Due to the incredible waste of tax money spent on Microsoft's new draconian software licensing terms, Billy and Monkey Boy have really pissed off the powers that be in IT in Oregon government. It's the same with the school districts where Microsoft called for audits to be done right before the end of the term, unless, of course, you would buy a Microsoft Select license for every box in your district, including *nix boxen and Macs....
It wouldn't surprise me a bit to see huge numbers of government agencies running OpenOffice in the next couple of years, not just because it saves money, but because everyone who uses it really likes it. An office package without the cruft that's easy to use.
Billy and his droogs might as well high-tail it back up to Redmond; they're wasting their money an d time in Oregon. We're already in the process of eliminating as much Microsoft from our networks as will be possible to do. And as an IT employee of the state of Oregon, good riddance to bad rubbish is all I have to say....
No you are incorrect. OSS does not mean it doesn't cost anything, it doesn't mean that you aren't putting out commercial software, it means you have additional rights.
Check out http://www.fsf.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html the granddady of the "movement" (hate the word movement but can't think of anything better) RMS even says it.
The term "free software" is sometimes misunderstood--it has nothing to do with price. It is about freedom.
Since "free" refers to freedom, not to price, there is no contradiction between selling copies and free software. In fact, the freedom to sell copies is crucial...
There are lots of no-cost non-OSS software out there, goto your favorite utility website and download something. I can download winamp and use it at no-cost, is it OSS??? No. Again no-cost != OSS, if it did the bill would say that they are forced to look at no-cost software instead of OSS.
Hey, don't get me wrong, I use open-source whenever possible. I drink the Kool-Aid; last year I moved one Oregon agency from a closed-source to an open-source extranet system. But the software/operating system is only one part of the computer systems involved, and the computer systems are only one part of the workflow/people involved. Let's not pretend that open source is always the best path to a solution. It isn't.
This makes for a real pain in the ass when you have to get a solution in place now and you have a budget of $0 for aquiring the necessary software from the approved vendor. This, sadly, is the case in a lot of state agencies.
Finding God in a Dog
Having read the law, the specific wording is such that if you don't use open source software you have to justify why. That means paperwork.
How many people who just want to create a small database for their department is going to want to write up a 40 page paper justifying the use of Microsoft Access? They won't, so they'll find something which takes less work to acquire even if it is actually more expensive to setup and use.
The people sponsoring this bill obviously understand how government bureacracies work, and they have setup wording that sounds reasonable on the surface, but would have devastating impact. It's manipulative, but that's frequently how you get bad laws passed.
That old chestnut! I wish this was Plastic so I could mod you "-1 disingenuous." Every time there's an OSS vs. commercial software debate, someone brings up the "someone to sue" line as if it had never been thought of before.
Now go read a commercial software license. Any commercial software license. You don't have someone to sue. MS Office could wipe out your backups and take your children hostage, but Microsoft isn't liable, because you agreed to their EULA. You don't have someone to sue. You might possibly get your purchase price back in an extreme case.
<sarcasm>Oh, never mind. Now you've set me straight.</sarcasm>
Say, why is it that the most clueless, argumentative posts include a self-referential line that ostensibly clears up that sort of confusion? How thoughtful.
This is an old, old criticism of institutional use of OSS and it has never been valid.