Slashdot Mirror
Texas Hearings On Open Source Bill
fusion812 writes "Senate Bill 1579 is proposed Texas state legislation that would require state agencies to consider 'open source software' when purchasing computer software. The bill has been introduced in the Senate, referred to committee, and is awaiting a schedule date for a hearing." Here's some more information from EFF Austin; fusion812 supplies a summary of the bill's provisions as well as a Real Audio sample of the provided testimony, both below. Also, see this report on NewsForge for some juicy quotes.
A sample recording of testimony can be heard here: http://www.Senate.state.tx.us/ram/archive/2003/may /050803StAffpm.ram
More information: Texas Senate Bill 1579
Senate Bill 1579 proposes that, for all new software acquisitions, a state agency shall:
1. consider acquiring open source software products in addition to proprietary software products;
2. except as provided by Subdivisions (4) and (5), acquire software products primarily on a value-for-money basis;
3. provide justification whenever a proprietary software product is acquired instead of open source software;
4. avoid the acquisition of products that do not comply with open standards for interoperability or data storage;
5. avoid the acquisition of products that are known to make unauthorized transfers of information to, or permit unauthorized control of or modification to the state government's computer systems by, parties outside the control of the state government."
A sample recording of testimony can be heard here: http://www.Senate.state.tx.us/ram/archive/2003/may /050803StAffpm.ram
More information: Texas Senate Bill 1579
Senate Bill 1579 proposes that, for all new software acquisitions, a state agency shall:
1. consider acquiring open source software products in addition to proprietary software products;
2. except as provided by Subdivisions (4) and (5), acquire software products primarily on a value-for-money basis;
3. provide justification whenever a proprietary software product is acquired instead of open source software;
4. avoid the acquisition of products that do not comply with open standards for interoperability or data storage;
5. avoid the acquisition of products that are known to make unauthorized transfers of information to, or permit unauthorized control of or modification to the state government's computer systems by, parties outside the control of the state government."
I work as a computer operator for a datacenter which is mandated by Texas law, that all state agencies have to consider using our datacenter to outsource their IT, and provide proof they can do it cheaper.
We have many mainframe agencies which spend millions in hardware and software licensing to IBM. We have one on a Sun E10k, and lots of smaller sun boxes, as well as P680 and P690 IBM 64bit mainframe-class AIX servers. A few Win2k clusters.
Nobody uses linux or other open source operating systems.
I could see the possibility of some of the clients migrating to a Linux solution running on the existing IBM s/390 and z/ mainframes, but this kind of thing would take years, and the beaurocracy is incredibly thick. Changing the -littlest- thing in the operation of these computer systems has to go through so many levels, it is truly ridiculous.
Discussion on this bill begins at 1:12:40 into the RM video.
Lawrence Lessig is my personal hero.
Sec. 2157.003. DETERMINING BEST VALUE FOR PURCHASES OF AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEMS. "Best value" for purposes of this chapter means the lowest overall cost of an automated information system. In determining the lowest overall cost for a purchase or lease of an automated information system under this chapter, the commission or a state agency shall consider factors including:
(1) the purchase price;
Ok I think OSS has this one.
(2) the compatibility to facilitate the exchange of existing data;
This could definately be a problem. Depending on how the agencies' data is stored, especially since the assumption is that they are currently using Closed Sourse Software, it may be difficult to get the data out!.
(3) the capacity for expanding and upgrading to more advanced levels of technology;
I would definately argue OSS can win this one hands down.
(4) quantitative reliability factors;
I hope that by this they don t mean a report published by a software company about its reliability--because I don't remember the last time I read one of those for my OSS programs.
(5) the level of training required to bring persons using the system to a stated level of proficiency;
Doh... No matter what anybody says, this is my main gripe about most OSS software that I have used. Except for some exceptions, documentation is difficult to find, and User Interfaces were not well thought out. I think most OSS developers feel that once their software functions as they think it should, they stop! Again, maybe I have just had some bad experiences, but it seems like 90% of the OSS software I use falls under this description.
(6) the technical support requirements for the maintenance of data across a network platform and the management of the network's hardware and software;
Obviously OSS has this one beat.
But the bottom line is that they agencies are only being told to do a TCO analysis before choosing software and that they have to consider OSS as well. Here is the real problem though. The person doing the TCO can do the analysis any way they want. So if somebody wasn't using OSS before, then when they go to anaylze the price/cost benifits they will simply use data that supports what they want to use.
it's not REQUIRING anything, except that OpenSource software be *considered*.
This is a good try for open source, but I worry this will just be its feel good legislation. The guts of the legislation is in 2054.114 (b), which states: For all new software acquisitions, a state agency shall:
(1) consider acquiring open source software products in addition to proprietary software products;
(2) except as provided by Subdivisions (4) and (5),
acquire software products primarily on a value-for-money basis;
(3) provide justification whenever a proprietary
software product is acquired instead of open source software;
(4) avoid the acquisition of products that do not
comply with open standards for interoperability or data storage;
and
(5) avoid the acquisition of products that are known to make unauthorized transfers of information to, or permit
unauthorized control of or modification to the state government's
computer systems by, parties outside the control of the state
government.
Just focus on (1) and (3) - this is legalese for writing two paragraphs to say why you are selecting the proprietary system you want to purchase.
The real issue for open source over proprietary is in the specifications for the bid, not in the selection process. Unless the open source product is responsive to what is in a bid, it doesn't need to be selected, no matter what this law says. In other words, if the bid solicitation is for a system that needs to meet the technical requirements of already existing products, it will be very difficult to meet those requirements for anything else.
Thus, if you have an IBM system, it will be diffcult to switch to Sun, or from Microsoft to something else. Most state IT departments are tied in to specific product lines, and it's like pulling teth to get them to change.
Bottom line, this will take years to have any significant impact. But as with any legislation, you need to start somewhere.
I am Sheriff of the EFF-Austin Open Source Posse and coordinator for our efforts on SB 1579. I want to offer some quick corrections to what is being discussed.
The main problem is that a lot of people are discussing the content of and materials about the bill as originally introduced. In the legislative process, that is often an initial bid just to get the discussion going. It is not uncommon for bills to be amended--or even completely substituted--as they go through the process. That is what has happened here.
Sen. Carona, the author of SB 1579, offered up a complete substitute. It has been accepted by the committee, replacing the original text. Therefore, the bill as originally written is off the table.
The article links to my report on the committee hearing. In that report you'll find the complete text of the one-paragraph substitute, along with the reasons why EFF-Austin supports it.
The substitute is significantly less sweeping in scope than the original. It is still valuable, and it is a great opening to see more open source in Texas government. In Thursday's hearing Sen. Carona stood strongly behind this bill, and stated that he planned to be back next legislative session with even stronger measures.
Our wiki page has been updated with the latest information on SB 1579. Our sb1579 mailing list (subscribe directions on the wiki page) is the best way to stay informed on this particular issue.
Thanks to everybody who has supported the effort to promote open source software in Texas state government.
I have mixed feeling about these kind of bills, because truthfully it's impossible to impose computer solutions from above. If people weren't going to consider open-source solutions anyway, then they don't need to be cajoled to do so.
The only exception I see is for the educational system (the universities, school districts). Because Dell and Compaq/HP are all located within Texas (as well as Apple in Austin), it's a foregone conclusion that Texas will use proprietary solutions, whether it be on the desktop or on the backend databases or servers.
People I talk to in Texas education (excluding higher education) don't even consider open source as an option. Many students are taught in class how to use MS Word, Photoshop, Powerpoint, and that is seen as a desirable thing. Never mind that comparable software solutions exist, and that the money could be better spent on other things (teachers, etc). Teachers don't see that because they don't have to pay for these things. Instructional technologists don't see this because often the prices are discounted for learning institutions (which I suppose is good, but at what cost: why are we creating future customers for Adobe and Microsoft?)
There is something to the argument that learning an application teaches students the basic concepts of spreadsheets, etc which can be applied towards comparable applications. But when comparable solutions exist (and they do), schools need to do more than provide the training so that students grow up and become good Microsoft customers.
As long as open source solutions are not mandated, I see nothing wrong with making technology planners have to investigate open source solutions before submitting their budgets.
Robert Nagle, Idiotprogrammer, Houston
Ooops! The parent story did not link to the hearing report. It actually links to extrameous info.
Ignore that. Read the hearing report instead.
"It needs plenty of care and feeding, so it's better that the IT budget gets spent on people to do that instead of supporting huge licensng fees."
NO! NO! NO! A thousand times NO!
I used to work for state government, and what you are describing is EXACTLY the mentality which has balooned the budget problems.
You are encouraged, nay rewarded, to not do things efficiently but rather to guarantee your job position.
You're just encouraging bad behavior.
You know a large part of that maintenance cost comes from recurring license fees and forced upgrade schedules don't you?
These two things combined with the intergrated nature of Microsoft software raise costs more than you would think.
Servers that require CALs compared to servers that don't are another area to consider.
Also, it seems that justification of software happens mostly at the initial stage. Once a company is "in" they have a lot of leverage across their products to get more money more often through "Upgrades".
I believe this is what they are most afraid of. What happens when an upgrades triggers a large purchase with the "Consider Open Source" part active?
Seems to me that analysis will lead to fewer upgrades and additional Cost of Ownership realizations that will not go in the proprietary industry favor...
This is not dead yet in Oregon! Please take a moment to contact House Speaker Karen Minnis. She is uninformed, listening to the lobby as if it were god and sitting on the bill.
If public opinion stays high, the issue will be heard.
You can contact her:
Speaker Minnis
900 Court St. NE
Room 269
Salem, OR 97301
Phn: 503-986-1200
Fax: 503- 986-1201
Email rep.karenminnis@state.or.us
A phone call is best because you can ask someone the nice and hard questions directly and request a response.
1. Why are Multnomah County residents being asked for additional taxes when obvious money saving bills like HB 2892 are being shelved?
2. Texas is willing to consider the bill. They also see right through the industry lobby thing. Why can't Oregon do the same?
3. How is it that proprietary software prices keep rising along with profit in the face of the worst high tech recession we have seen in years? Could it be the market is failing in this area? Should the State continue to support this by stalling legislation that will bring welcome competition to the state software marketplace?
You can think of others...
If you will forget, send an e-mail today. If you can remember --please do make that phone call.
It will matter in Oregon.
Blogging because I can...