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."
The consideration for open source should already be included in the basic law that all state departments should spend taxpayer resources in a way that would benefit the taxpayer most.
The individual departments should already be considering the most appropriate software that meets requirements, buying the best software at the best price for the job. This should be covered by existing laws.
We don't need additional laws promoting one kind v/s the other.
Mmmm.. Donuts
Considering that Microsoft has one of the biggest lobbying groups,if not the biggest (I don't remember), it really is no surprise. It will take persistance and a unified front to keep MS from blocking it. Unfortunately, politics isn't about what makes sense or what is best for the people. But if enough citizens complain to their representative, they have a better chance of listening.
Good luck Oregon.
"Oregon bill that would require government agencies to consider Open Source software"
Ain't that a bit worrying? You've got to make laws to prevent government to waste your tax dollars by giving them to rich software companies, without even thinking that there are free alternatives. Duh!
have you been defaced today?
In my opinion, the forces of government corruption are strong in Oregon: Complicated methods corrupt Oregon government.
People might actually get an education in something other than a government supported monopoly? Oh, I shudder at the thought.
Banaaaana!
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
Okay, so I'm an Oregonian, and I see absolutely ZERO point to this bill...
This bill says Oregon should have to consider open-source software when upgrading systems... Where is the law that says Oregon CAN'T do that already? What a stupid waste of legislation, no matter how big you are on open source. Are politicians so stupid they need a law to tell them they can consider obvious options?
Uhmm... wait... don't answer that last question. I figured it out on my own.
" The consideration for open source should already be included in the basic law that all state departments should spend taxpayer resources in a way that would benefit the taxpayer most."
Exactly how will this help in benefitting the taxpayer? In the matter of H1Bs, the legislation was specifically phrased "foreigners may be employed ONLY WHERE such talent is not locally avbl". Only a similar strong wording can promote Open Source.
I'd like a legislation which states "Agencies which consider software purchases must consider commercial closed-source s/w ONLY WHERE Open Source products satisfying the needs, are not available". The penalty for non-conformance to this legislation should be the loss of the taxpayer's money i.e. the (extra) price paid for closed-source s/w.
The problem with society is there is no legislation against apathy and stupidity.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Admins trying to install the best software for the job isn't the problem - the problem is non-technical department heads choosing the software with the best-sounding sales pitch, and then hiring admins who can install that.
The bill would mean that instead of just buying MS Office, they'd have to look at StarOffice and decide which would be better. Then they can still go ahead and buy MS Office anyway, if that's really what they need.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Yeah, in other words, instead of just picking the first thing that comes along, which is ALWAYS commercial software, they would be REQUIRED to consider an OSS alternative.
A few good points:
1. Good chance at finding a cheaper solution for the initial implementation.
2. Good chance at finding a more secure solution.
3. The solution would be maintainable, and free to upgrade to meet future technologies.
4. No source code is hidden from you.
5. If they decide not to use an evaluated OSS solution then the resulting report could greatly benefit that OSS projects future.
6. If the OSS solution is decided on, it will bring this OSS project further into the public for other's to consider using.
7. The more OSS solutions that organizations are aware of and implement, the more organizations that will be aware of and implement them as a compounding result.
etc
8. Future change: If something is free, you aren't held back from changing because of all the money you already dumped into it. And you most likely wouldn't get involved in a platform that was designed to lock you into it with no escape (microsoft), so you'd have a better chance at changing in the future as well.
Someone else list bad points; I'm going to bed.
This is my sig. The post is over.
No-no-no - For organizations with very limited budgets, such as schools, a better admin would also consider the most economical solution:
windows (which ever version is already installed) AND oss (Open Office)
And that's probably what's got Microsoft's panties all tied in a knot.
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.
But anybody who has ever worked in IT will tell you that the initial cost for the acquisition of the software is peanuts in comparison to the "cost of the software". You need somebody to install, to train the users, to update the software etc...
In a lot of cases oss software will be more cost/effective (say apache vs. anything out-there), but in other cases there is no oss solution for a particular problem, or what exist is so feature-less, or so complicated to install/maintain that a comercial equivalent is more cost-efficient.
"I think that the law is -1 redundant."
And I think your post is a reply to a redundant post! Here's my suggestion to give some real TEETH to the law.. Closed Source software must be considered IF and ONLY IF open-source alternatives which satisfy the stated needs of the govt. agencies don't exist. Any agency in wilful violation of this legislation will be penalised... and the penalty terms could be laid down.
The fact of the matter is that Open Source is a special category of software and needs legislation. It's like an endangered species - it cannot sustain itself without public awareness and legal protection. It is highly useful though.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
"We believe that procurement decisions should be based on the overall merits and value of the software under consideration," said Alex Mercer, a Microsoft spokeswoman.
In other words, it should be based on how well that software is Marketed, not on how well it performs.
Would they not discover the "overal merits and value" by evaluating software instead of ONLY listening to the production of one of the most aggressive marketing engines in the world, and online opinion?
This is my sig. The post is over.
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. if you don't think that is important, you're mistaken. governmnets and schools do not want accountability. since i am a public school teacher, i can attest to this. these people want to be able to blame someone, for something. they don't want the responsibility. with OSS, even say red hat or suse, what, you gonna sue them or call them when something goes wrong. yes, i know you get support contracts. but it ain't the same.
using OSS requires taking risk. these people won't do it. it is so much easier to "just use microsoft". you can't be faulted for making a "bad decision". but you choose to go with OSS, and it has even 1/10 the problems that microsoft's "solutions", you get your ass fried. please remember, some of the problems with public procurement:
1) if you get $100, and spend $105, you demonstrated a need
2) if you get $100, and spend $85, next year you get $75, since yoiuy don't ned it, and guess what, the schmuck who overspent, get's your chunk
3) it isn't you're money, you don't care
4) typically your purchasing decisions will reflect on your higher ups, whose recommendations you need to advance
5) cheaper is better, most of the time. if you get 20 of item A for $100 and 25 of item B for $100, B is better choice. but, if you get 30 OSS items for $0, see rule #1
my father spent thirty years selling, and schools and gov'ts were among his clients. they were most notorious for doing this: they'd see his competitors crap, buy it, and when it broke, he'd sell them a better system. so the purchasing agent got to:1) buy more for less, 2) blame company for product problem, 3) got credit for solving problem, 4) get's bigger budget next year
you think i'm full of shit? how i wish i was. if you have never spent much time in schools (i have) or government, you are missing quite a learning experience. so, it is no surprise that OSS is not widely adopted in public service. but, call and write your elected officials. remember, THEY care about public dollars.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
Maybe from a purely practical standpoint, a law like this doesn't change much. Someone who really, really wants to buy Windows can say: I'm closing my eyes, I'm considering OSS...I count to ten, OK... now we can go buy Windows!
But that's all right!
The point of a law like this is making a statement and proving that there is a will on the part of the State government to have an agressive OSS approache.
A law like this also lets The People (tm) have a role in deciding what kind of software their gov't uses. Without tying the hands of state agencies, it sends a message.
The bottom line is the message getting sent. That is why MS is worried. It is more symbolic than anything, because it is another step towards widespread acceptance of OSS. And I think that MS is just as much worried about the symbolism of this law than about actually losing x Windows licences in Oregon.
Go Ducks! Good job on this one.
Congratulations! Now we are the Evil Empire
As someone who has done actual research on Oregon HB 2892 (reading the bill and talking to its sponsor), I'd like to try to clear up some misconceptions with a short FAQ:
Q: What did HB 2892 do?
A: Two things: Require state agencies to (1) consider open source in procurement, and (2) procure only software that supports open formats for data storage and interchange.
Q: Why the past tense in the previous question?
A: Because it appears that the language of the bill has been compromised to increase its chance of passage. I haven't yet looked for the revised wording.
Q: Why is (1) necessary---can't state agencies consider open source anyhow?
A: According to the bill's sponsor, the nature of state procurement rules makes open source procurement difficult. Because there is no sponsoring organization that will bid contracts for typical open source alternatives, agencies may be bound by law or regulation to ignore them. (1) changes that.
Q: Doesn't the language of (1) force open software on state agencies?
A: No, it forces them to consider it. In a plain reading of the rules, a state agency should be prepared to explain why it selected a particular package over open source alternatives. HB 2892 has no detailed description of the criteria or methods of consideration.
Q: Do state agencies use a lot of open source anyhow?
A: Yes. Agencies that already use open source software generally support the bill: see above.
Q: Is (1) the most important part of the bill?
Hope this helps.A: No, both provisions (1) and (2) are important. Perhaps the chief concern of the bill's sponsor, Rep. Barnhart, is legacy systems and lock-in. (1) addresses this issue by encouraging continuously-maintainable systems. (2) addresses the issue by allowing seamless replacement of systems.
"We believe that procurement decisions should be based on the overall merits and value of the software under consideration," said Alex Mercer, a Microsoft spokeswoman.
In other words, go with open source.
i am a teacher, and i think i can give you some insight. there are several reasons. one, software companies see schools ans students like drug dealers do. they will damn near give away there software because if you get "hooked" on their stuff, when you leave, you only kow there software. and the district level people see the supposed great deal they get. two, in our district, some of the technidiots have gone to microsoft seminars, and come home with all sorts of freebies. it's like freakin halloween. so, they are not going to be the one that suggests OSS when they lose their sugar daddy. three, most school tech people are bottom of the barrell. for instance, i run linux inmy classroom, and the technidiots can't figure out how i can access the internet nor my novell network shares from linux, since "novell doesn't support linux". ipx_configure and ncpmount. districts can't pay going wages. so they get those least able to find jobs in the private sector.
something else, too. they just don't know linux and don't want to. they have no need to save the district money nor do they have any need nor desire to improve their skills. school district jobs are permanent jobs. they don't want to rock the boat. if the district dared move to linux, they'd be out of work or would have to retool their skills. they want neither. i could go on with endless stories but i won't bore you. keep up the fight, and take it to your school board. here's what you do. find just one area that OSS can do more, for less. it shouldn't be too hard. present it to the school board. they have their meetings open to the public. these people are elected. they care about votes. if they can say they saved money and improved __________ (fill inthe blank), let them get the credit, and you'll be more successful. for instance, give them examples where this "linux thing" has been adopted by companies, to show that it is a viable, powerful, etc., solution. i'd love to help.
i have run into lots of problems too. keep up the good fight. the latin phrase goes something like non illegetimum carborundum. don't let the bastards get you down!!! email me if you need assisstance. rmandel AT hartdistrict.org (sorry for the typos, it's 1AM where i'm,at)
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
"Microsoft stalling bill that would require consideration of OSS"
In other late-breaking news, the sky is blue and computer chips contain silicon. Film at 11.
Anyone ever hear these.
We'd Like to use PC's but we need IBM otherwise we will look foolish
Nobody ever got fired for using IBM
Now updated to: Nobody got fired for using Microsoft
This bill gives OSS legitimacy. It means when someone suggests an OSS solution it has to be considered and can't be dismissed as that shareware crap.
Remember most IT directors are political creatures. They are people that are much more adept at managing organization political games than they are at producing software, network infrastructure, or technology of any kind. They appreciate a situation where they one acceptable choice and the rest are no brainer rejects, It saves on the thinking that way.
The law forces IT people that otherwise wouldn't give a second look to OSS to do so. Thats what Microsoft doesn't want. They are fighting the battle of mindshare.
The GPL isn't restrictive for anybody, as long as you don't distribute it. You can change the code and lock it up, and as long as you don't distribute anything no one will say a word. Perfect for gov't, which is not supposed to be in the software business anyway.
Kernel Hacker Bob could liscense his changes to it under the GPL, and big bad software company MS could just incorporate it into Windows.This just means that KH Bob ends up doing free work for MS and gets nothing in return, while MS makes money off of his code. MS wins and KH Bob loses. End of story.
Congratulations! Now we are the Evil Empire
Huh??? If open source is really the compelling choice, than it _should_ be selected. If not, then the governement should go with closed source. I think laying down a law restricing the choice to one side or the other will be counterproductive, and ultimately hurtful to the open source cause. Imagine the backlash when people in government have things like OpenOffice forced on them when they are used to WordPerfect or MS Office? On the flip-side, wouldn't they be more receptive to change if they tried something like apache, samba, openoffice, etc. on their servers/workstations and came to the conclusion _on their own_ that open source really was the way to go?
If open source really is compelling, people will flock to it, no matter how many barriers are put up. Just look at what has happened in the server rooms. How many companies are running Linux now that used to run Solaris/HP-UX, etc.? Linux became the "best tool" for the job and quickly took over. Hopefully, the same will happen one day for the desktop.
That's the best policy...
So if, as Microsoft says, their software is the best, why should they need to lobby against other software?
I work for a state government agency in Washington that is dominated by MS-driven servers and desktops.
Our web server and internal network run on a highly modified variant of RedHat Linux. We ride on the back of a Win2k network managed by a much larger agency with whom we are co-located.
We tried to work with IT Services folks for six months to get permission to plug Linux boxes into their network. They were (surprise) extremely resistant. Finally, we just installed them on the network. Within hours, they were standing at my cubicle demanding answers.
Turns out they have a policy that requires only Win2k machines on their network. I persuaded them to give our machines a few days on the network to see if they would cause any problems, and they agreed. Long story short: the Linux boxes have been more stable and less problematic than their own Win2k machines.
Why the resistance? One: the IT folks only know MS products. Two: they were convinced the MS products in which they had been trained were more stable and secure than any Linux box. Three: they were convinced Linux was more difficult to manage than their systems. Four: based on items two and three, they believed the total cost of operating Linux boxes would exceed their MS boxes.
Our Linux servers have been operating inside their network for a year with nary a hiccup. They are (grudgingly) starting to ask more questions about how to configure and maintain such platforms.
The lesson I've learned: when IT folks only know one solution, that's what they will use. Any other solutions will be rejected out of hand. It is not a question of which technology is better or more cost effective. Like most people, they want to reside within their comfort zone rather than take risks.
Dear Beloved Politicians,
As you may be aware, Rep. Phil Barnhart has introduced HB 2892 to require state agencies to consider open source software when considering software, system, or network computer purchases.
As a hard working entrepeneur whose business relies on a foundation of open source technologies, I would like to attest to Phil's statement that "Oregon could save millions of dollars while increasing the flexibility, usefulness, and reliability of its computer systems."
I have used open source software since 1996 to improve my high school, programs for the Housing Authority of Portland, and my home for only the cost of my time as a volunteer. Furthermore, I was able to utilize excess hardware on which commercial solutions could not function as well or at all. I have no hesitation in saying that my entrepreneurial ventures that have contributed to Oregon's economy would not have been possible without open source.
Open source products are created by millions of dedicated developers who benefit from the same culture to which they contribute. Unlike commercial software, open source is designed to embrace the inifinite reproducability that computers allow in order to help the more tangible aspect of computing (hardware) to be used as effectively as possible (read: more bang for the buck). Companies such as IBM and Apple have accepted this and have offered a prominent place for open source in their business planning.
Open source also eases the burden of budget planning and human resources in managing licensing for commercial software. It's great to operate with the peace of mind knowing you will never be audited for what's running on your computers.
More information on open source is available at opensource.org.
Thanks for your help in steering the future in the right direction!
Sincerely,
Travis Pulley
Look, this bill is about public sector buying, so not only are your opinions about private sector buyers irrelevant, they show that you don't think before you post.
What's important about bills like these? They put Open Source/Free Software on a level playing field with Closed Source/Proprietary Software. That means Open Source/Free Software is going to lose sometimes. If you can't accept that, then you are the mirror image of the straw man buyer you put up: The idiot in IT who wants worthless free software because it's cool, not useful or usable.
Can you explain to me why MS Excel is inferior to the OpenOffice spreadsheet? And why corporate buyers who purchase it are "idiots who don't know what they're buying"? Tell me what the OpenOffice solution is for desktop databases--what do they have to substitute for MS Access? Tell me about ODBC drivers. Tell me what you're substituting in for MS Project Manager, and how it interoperates.
By the way, I use OpenOffice at home nearly exclusively, both on OS X and on Windows--I like it. But I'm not blind to its flaws and failings, either.
I fight these battles nearly every day. I'm contracting in an extremely unfriendly environment (where Open Source==Freeware==Shareware). We've still managed to keep some paths open for OS/FS. We didn't do it by telling people they were idiots for buying software which--oddly enough--works for their purposes, fulfills their requirements, and is cost-effective to use.