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."
Senators live for these kind of hearings. They can make up at least 4 hours of quality sleep.
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."
So state workers in Texas will now be using KaZaa Lite.
Damnit, Bill, we asked you to stop posting here! :P
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
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.
..Would be to advertize it as free software. What lawmaker wouldn't bite at that. "I saw to is we stopped wasting hard earned tax payer money when a free alternitive is available, God bless America!"
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
As much as people hate it, Affirmative Action was a necessary policy in America. Now we must undertake a similiar policy in order to overcome the barriers erected by large software corporations. I'm sure some (if not most) of us have read the corp's reaction to policies such as this. I think that's to be expected. The majority (in this case, the one with the money is the majority) doesn't like it when the minorities get a fair shot at what they always saw as "their world." Bills such as the one in TX are going to be needed in order to restore a level playing field in the software world. Expect to hear much outcry from MS, IBM, Sun, and other large corps from this one. Don't expect this to pass ... IMO, the lobbyists will see to it that it never will.
-A.M.
Pimpin' all the Karma Hoes!
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.
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.
Acquiescence leads to obliteration
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?
Acquiescence leads to obliteration
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.
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.
If I chose open source software I download a free copy of Linux, Open Office, and Evolution, and I have the rest developed for me. The local economy benefits because I get some software developed and because I pay someone to support my computer network and the software I installed.
If I chose proprietary software I buy a copy of Windows, Microsoft Office, and Outlook, and again I have the rest developed for me. The local economy benefits because I get some software developed and because I pay someone to support my computer network and the software I installed. Looks familiar?
The major difference between the two solutions is that in the first solution I am not sponsoring a foreign corporation (I'm not in the USA), leaving me more money that I can spend locally - on the software I commissioned, for example.
And if I were located in the USA the same argument would in all likelyhood still hold. Ask yourself how you profit from the $40e9 or so that Microsoft has lying around, or the ridiculous profits they announce every year. Would it not be better to plunge that money into a small local company that employs maybe 30 people and is willing to provide you with 24x7 support for your Linux systems?
The economy does not benefit from a single titanic company collecting a tax over all computers and software. It does benefit from those local companies. As a simple test, try this: enumerate all people you know who work in IT. How many work for Microsoft? How many work in a small 'local' company?
'Open Source' does not mean that all software development will stop. So many people need software, and they all need something slightly different, made to perfectly match what they are doing. Most software development is done on this basis, and Open Source will not change that need. Only software companies that sell pre-packaged solutions to large crowds need to fear it.
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.
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?"
So what you're saying is, we're going to see closed source supremacist movements? The Closed Code Clan? Interesting.
I for one welcome our new SCOviet Russian overlords to whom all our base are belong.
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.
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.