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."

Comments

Is there another clause

[Timesprout]

provide justification whenever a proprietary software product is acquired instead of open source software;

I have always been of the opinion that the correct tool should be chose for the task at hand, be that tooling open or proprietary I really dont care.

I get concerned when I see clauses such as those above when there is no corresponding clause for justifying Open source choice over proprietary. Forcing adoption of Open Source thru legisaltion is every bit as bad, if not worse as the methods MS used to gain dominance.

Re:Is there another clause

[Rooktoven]

How do you know what the "right tool" is if you are locked into using certain proprietary software that through licensing perpetuates its presence indefinitely?

Having to "consider" does not mean having to "use". I am amazed at how often this point is twisted. Besides, if closed source _is_ the best tool, why should its makers worry?

Re:Is there another clause

[Malcontent]

How is this in any way forcing somebody to use open source. If you state govt just spent millions (or billions) on SQL server licences don't you think they taxpayers should ask "why did you choose SQL server when you could have gotten postgres, mysql, interbase, or sapdb for free?". Personally I would also ask them justify why they chose one proprietary product instead of using less expensive ones too.

If they had legitamate reasons for choosing MS sql server then they should have no problems telling the taxpayers why.

Re:Is there another clause

[lspd]

I get concerned when I see clauses such as those above when there is no corresponding clause for justifying Open source choice over proprietary.

The justification for open source over proprietary is mentioned right above this requirement, namely unrestricted use, right to modify, right to distribute, and low up front costs. It doesn't bar any agency from choosing Word over OpenOffice. It just says that you can't pick MS Word without bothering to look at the alternatives and compare the total cost. You need to have a decent reason for picking proprietary software over free alternatives. Considering that it's my dime they're spending I don't think that's much to ask.

Re:Is there another clause

[dbarclay10]

provide justification whenever a proprietary software product is acquired instead of open source software;

I have always been of the opinion that the correct tool should be chose for the task at hand, be that tooling open or proprietary I really dont care.

I get concerned when I see clauses such as those above when there is no corresponding clause for justifying Open source choice over proprietary. Forcing adoption of Open Source thru legisaltion is every bit as bad, if not worse as the methods MS used to gain dominance.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, it's a sad state of affairs when people need to be told to justify picking the best solution available.

Unfortunately, that IS the state of affairs. It's sad, but many, many, MANY proprietary software aquisitions aren't chosen because they're the best solution for the job, but because somebody got taken out to a nice dinner. What's more, in my experience, the people who are deciding what software to buy aren't even remotely qualified to evaluate whether or not it even solves the problem at hand, let alone whether it's the best solution or not.

Does this happen with Open Source or Free Software? I've never seen it, but I'll accept for the sake of argument that it happens. But on a much, much, much smaller scale. Because of this problem, because it's so endemic with proprietary software but pretty much non-existent with Open Source and Free Software, because authorities routinely purchase software which doesn't fit the bill (so to speak), it's necessary to say to them, "allright, you can choose whatever you want, but if it's going to be proprietary, if it's going to cose us these truly distrubing amounts of money, you have to tell us why."

It's a purely reactionary bill to a very specific trend that's been observed. It isn't an attempt to make some ethical statement, it's an attempt to stop the over-aquisition of software that costs more to buy, that costs more to maintain, and may not even solve the problem it was supposedly bought for.

Why don't they say the same Open Source and Free Software? I dunno. I guess because up-front aquisition costs are so small in comparison to proprietary software as to be negligible (I've seen a government agency purchanse about six million dollars worth of Oracle licenses when all they needed were flat-file text databases, and would certainly have been served by one of MySQL, SAPDB, or Postgres. They could have bought the software, hardware, *and* support from a vendor like IBM for about a sixth of that). Perhaps it's also proven to be cheaper to maintain, as well. (And, in my experience, it always is. Invariably. I had six people working under me at one point maintaining a hundred Windows workstations. And they were overworked. I was maintaining, on my own, well over two hundred Unix workstations and servers. And I still had time left over to do the odd programming task that some other group needed, as well as "manage" the six Windows techs. They weren't idiots, either, they followed pretty decent administration policies. There have been studies to this affect. There have also been studies saying the opposite, but I'm sorry, my own experience trumps all studies that were paid-for by lobbiests :).

Perhaps, if or when Open Source and Free Software proves to be more expensive to both purchase and maintain than the overwhelmingly vast majority of proprietary software that's bought, there will be another bill similar to this one, stating that government agencies must justify these obscene expenditures with little to no benefit. They've proven that they're willing to do it when it happens, so I'll have faith they'll do it again if it becomes necessary :)

Re:Is there another clause

[hazem]

4. avoid the acquisition of products that do not comply with open standards for interoperability or data storage;

I agree with you that this is one of the most important aspects of this bill. I like open source, but I think ALL software used by the government should store its data in an open and published format.

Democracy requires free information. I detest the idea that information created and stored using a certain piece of software might not be accessible at a future date.

Re:OSS

[Rooktoven]

Hardly. It would allow companies spend in areas other than software, or even to (gasp) hire programmers-- thus putting more programmers to work.

This merely means that the software dollar isn't spent on licensing and (read mostly Microsoft) marketing, but rather on specific goals that meet company or individual needs.

Re:Texas agencies on mainframe

[mAineAc]

Open Source software is not necessarily Linux. There are many Open Source programs that run on other oprerating systems.

Weighing In

[Saint Stephen]

Open Source should not be "required". I can just imagine how some mid-level government manager would feel being forced to consider OpenOffice (for example) when he just wants to buy Office and be done with it -- word would start to circulate about his crappy experience, Open Source in general would suffer, and anti-OSS camp has more ammo.

I get really scared when I start hearing people who believe in freedom so much they are going to force you to be free (at a metaphorical gunpoint). Just because *I* like that I can get workalike functionality of thousands of $$s of software, doesn't mean I should force people to use it. Free will rules. Of course, government should *want* to use free software anyway, to save our money. But don't force them.

Re:OSS

[phippy]

while I'm sure that this IS a troll, i'll bite because I'm waiting on a Solaris upgrade that'll take a while...

if OSS will completely stall the world economy, then why hasn't it already ? Sendmail ? Apache ? BIND ? these things essentially run the internet, having more use than any other of its closed source counterparts, by an astronomically high rate.

please explain how OSS will stall the economy. if you have no response, then my idea of it being a troll may have been true.

Re:OSS

[extremecenter]

"... developers are put out of jobs in favor of using free (as in beer) code."

Actually I think Bruce Sterling has it right - open source is "free, like a puppy". 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.

Re:Smoke and Mirrors

[praksys]

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.

Actually this is more important than you realize. If you are innocent of a crime then of course providing a solid alibi is the best way to get yourself off the suspects list. If you are guilty of a crime then providing a false alibi is often the worst thing you can do. Saying nothing at all is usually better. Why? Because as soon as you say something the police have something to work on, and at the very least will probably be able to show that you lied.

Likewise there is no way to attack the government's reasons for acting if they do not tell you want those reasons were. A law like this effectively forces beurocrats to give an alibi. If they are faking it, then critics will have something to work on.

This would be a "good thing".

[cornice]

Here's why. With all the DMCA, Super DMCA and software patent legislation floating around it would be nice to have some open source laws on the books. Maybe some conflicts in legislation might help some law makers to see how these laws impact open source. "What do you mean we can't use our XYZ software anymore?" "What do you mean we can only get an update for XYZ software from a foreign FTP site?"

Re:Better PR...

[Realistic_Dragon]

"There may be no price tag attached to the aquisition of some Open Source software but it costs to support and maintain it."

Right, like Windows installs itself, runs flawlessly, and every time it breaks a little man from Microsoft pops out of the air beside your computer and fixes it for you.

If you took the money you didn't spend on buying Windows and stashed it in a high yield investment account, it would probably cover paying a large percentage of your IT staff, especially since you could fire all the ones doing nothing but running around and rebooting crashed PCs and wiping spyware by having to reinstall the OS.

Re:OSS

[Xtifr]

That's not about OSS, that's the way the industry has always gone. Developers (and software companies) have been being put out of jobs since long before OSS came into the spotlight. There used to be a competitive market in word processors for MS platforms. Now, all those companies that made those products are nothing but a dim rememberance. Remember Stacker? Remember Borland? Remember DRI?

Or, on a more personal note, I once worked for a company that made PC-based point-of-sale systems; we charged a couple of thousand dollars, but that included updates and support. We were very competitive in the market at that time. Then along came a company that sold a competitive product for a couple of hundred bucks (with no support or updates, of course), and our company took a major hit, and had to lay off most of the workforce (including me). But that's just standard free-market capitalism -- offer what appears to be a better product and/or what appears to be a better price, and steal your competitors' customers, maybe even put them out of business.

As for OSS, companies like Trolltech or Sleepycat are using it as a competitive advantage. And last I heard, competition was supposed to be good for the world economy! Of course, it can be painful for individuals who find themselves being out-competed (see last paragraph), but it's still overall a good thing.

The thing you're complaining about has nothing to do with OSS per se; OSS is simply a sign that software is moving from being an expensive specialty market with high margins to being a large commodity market with razor-thin margins. Overall, I think that's a good thing, even though there's obviously going to be a lot of disruption involved.

Finally, consider my first job as a software developer: I got a contract to write a quicksort for a new machine. Nowadays, quicksort is included in the standard C library. Let us take a moment to weep for all those poor software developers who no longer have an opportunity to make money writing quicksort. And then let us move back to the realm of sanity. I don't want to write quicksorts for the rest of my life. I'm tired of re-inventing wheels, just because the older wheels are all proprietary. If you can't find some productive arena to apply your expertise, then maybe you are in the wrong business. Software developers aren't owed a living any more than buggy-whip manufacturers are. When the market moves on, it's time to move with it.

public vs. private money

[timothy]

Money taken from me in the form of taxes (and the state of Texas has gotten quite a bit from me in the form of sales taxes in the years I lived there) has a different set of responsibilities attached than money being spent by a private enterprise. General Welfare, all that.

The thing about using open source code, and in particular when necessary paying for improvements to it, is that it's hard to see when this does *not* benefit the general welfare, assuming that the State in its usual infinite wisdom does not care to save / not spend other people's money in the first place.

Given that government agencies (hey, same is true at large corporations) like to spend money (and face disincentives to not spend at least up to their alloted budgets), let's say they're going to spend the same total money for particular tasks on either a) proprietary software + customization / integration and supportor b) Freely available software + customization / integration and support. That may be fanciful (despite optimism and propaganda on both sides), but I think it's actually a conservative guess.

At the end of the day / project / whatever, there's some code (still in existence) and whatever additions have been made to it. If there are additions that are somehow tied to the state government itself (ties to certain databases or weird data formats, etc) and they're modular enough, there could even be some cross-project advantages.

Also, one key advantage I've not noticed anyone mention in this thread is the fact that open source code (whether the FSF calls it Free or not) can be audited and justified a lot more easily than closed source apps. For one thing, I'd like to see tax-funded software be aggressively bid on; if code is open by policy, then improving it etc can be chased after by programmers / small software firms. It doesn't have to mean switching entire software systems ...

timothy