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."
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.
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.
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
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.