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."

Comments

Not exactly stalled....

[Colonel Panic]

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.

Re:I'm confused

[InsaneGeek]

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.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

I've worked on a couple State of Oregon development projects (hence the posting as AC). The open-source vs. closed-source debate is a bit more complex than it would seem here. A few relevant points:

• The vast majority of people using computers in government are not techies. They are just people trying to do their jobs and they want familiar and easy-to-use tools to get those jobs done. For most non-tech-savvy users, the simple and familiar closed-source apps are going to be much easier to use.
• The state IT department is (to my knowledge) a Windows shop. Two different departments that I've worked with have been told that they will not get IT support for open-source applications.
• Open source requires a higher level of technical ability to install and maintain. Though I've met exceptions to this rule, you're not likely to find a whole lot of qualified 'nix sysadmins in state government. This is a potential security and support minefield.
• Why would any admin recommend moving from a Windows environment with 100% compliance with existing workflows to a hybrid or open-source environment with unknown compliance and a tremendous expense in lost productivity as people learned the new tools? There's a huge hidden cost here.

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.

Re:Good

[MAXOMENOS]

The law is not -1 redundant, unfortunately. There are several state agencies that can only aquire software from selected, approved vendors. If the vendor doesn't carry open source, you have to go proprietary.

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.

Re:Good

[sheldon]

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.

Re:no OSS company to sue

[catfood]

the problem with OSS as far as gov't/schools are concerned is that when you have a company that makes the software, hardware, buildings, etc., you have somebody a) at the other end of the phone line and b) someone to sue.

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.

if you don't think that is important, you're mistaken.

<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.