Slashdot Mirror
Lobbyists Urge South Australia To Drop Open Source Bill
Red Wolf writes "The Age reports that South Australia has caused eyebrows at the Initiative for Software Choice (ISC) to be raised in concern, with the organisation writing to Premier Mike Rann over a proposed Open Source software bill. The ISC, by its own definition, is a "global coalition of large and small companies committed to advancing the concept that multiple competing software markets should be allowed to develop and flourish unimpeded by government preference or mandate"."
Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to its source code released.
:)
A good troll excercises at least some degree of subtlety. I think whoever modded the parent "insightful" just felt sorry for you. Or wanted a quick way out of the moderator pool.
Either a) Get new lawyers. b) Stop trolling.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to
:)
its source code released. This was simply unacceptable.
Where did you hire your lawyers?
You just have to release source, if you use existing
source and modify it, but if you just use GNU-tools, you don't have to release the source.
The problem in the world today is communication. Too much communication - Homer Simpson
Please don't feed the trolls.....
It has the same old nonsense:
-We have to do all the work for the rest of the world to leach
-Compiling with GCC makes program GPLed
-GPL is keeping linux back
Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
GCC has an exception, compiled code have no strings attached.
You don't have to distribute the changes, only give them to your clients (but with no NDA about the code).
I won't even comment about the fairness of shared source, or GPL being draconian.
And BTW, GPL is not General Protective License, it is General Public License.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html
A few comments:
1. The Linux kernel does support Token Ring, it was probably disabled on your distro for some reason.
2. ext2 does not need defragmentation.
3. Your lawyer is an idiot. You only need to release source code under the GPL if you are releasing the binaries; if it was a purely internal development then the source can be kept private. Secondly the GCC license does not and never has said that everything compiled with GCC must be open source.
I say again, your legal beagal is an idiot. He did not actually read the GPL, he just pontificated on something he did not understand. Because of that you have wasted a lot of time and effort doing something unnecessary.
You and your lawyer are ... somewhat naive with regards to the Gnu GPL (General Public, not Protective, License). It does not indicate you must release the source for any modifications you make to programs covered by the GPL, only for modifications you make to programs covered by the GPL AND THEN DISTRIBUTED. In other words, you can make any modifications you want to the source, and keep them private, as long as you don't then release the binaries resulting from compilations of your modified source.
Further, my own reading of the GPL does not indicate that simply using a GPL work such as GCC results in the software you are compiling to be ruled by the GPL; the GPL talks about "works based on the Program[controlled by the GPL]" or "a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language."
Penultimately, I think you're probably about five years or so behind the times if you think that Linux is, at this point, "only a bit player."
Lastly, I'm guessing you're just trolling, right?
I think you're entitled to modify GPL'd stuff all you want for your own amusement, but you're not allowed to release compiled binaries of your work without also releasing the source code. So if all the work you did was internal, I think you're entitled to keep it that way, although if you have made useful changes you ought (as a moral principle) to give them back to the community.
I'm not sure of the status of GCC, but I'd very much doubt that everything you compile with it has to be released - how could you, since some things that you compile may be other people's proprietory code! And I certainly wouldn't want to be deluged by a sea of GPL'd "Hello, World!" programs...
Would anyone who is, actually, a lawyer like to comment? I'd like to be clear on these points myself :-)
Your lawyers obviously do not have a clue what they are talking about.
Compiling software with gcc does not require you to release your software under the GPL.
If you are developing 'in-house' and are not releasing your software you do not need to release the source code.
If you use someone else's code, of course you have to comply with their licence. If that is the GPL and you want to sell your code as well as their code I should think you would have to release it.
If you incorporated a piece of Windows's code into your application, do you not think that you would have to comply with Microsoft's licence???
Linux has had Token Ring support for a long time; this looks like more FUDing and Trolling.
Ext2 is a well written filesystem and does not require constant defragging like Microsoft's filesystems do. This is lack of knowledge on your own part. I have a number of file and database servers running ext2 and ext3 that have been up for a number of years, while being heavily used and still only have 3 to 6% fragmentation.
Sorry to all others for responding to such an obvious Troll; however some fool had moderated it up.
Slashdot Beta should die a painful death.
how many of the lobbyists work for microsoft.
Death has been proven to be 99% fatal in lab rats.
The article doesn't detail the intricacies of the law so I'll just guess: government wants to make itself consider Open Source first before spending money on the propriety route.
Naturally, propriety software producers' lobying group sees their collective future sales go to hell and starts whining.
Next steps:
- Condemn the lobying group
- call on all local geeks to pressure the governement to accept the proposed ammendment.
- start an all out flamewar with the trolls on " the relative merrits of both types of software".
Now if somebody mods this up high enough fast enough, we can get this over with real soon... *grin*.
Karma? What's that again?
seriously, as i read this all i could imagine was Gates himself sat in a huge leather chair dictating this word for work to Kramer his Be-atch.
Fingers steepled.... excellllleeeennntt
S
Kingdom of Loathing (www.kingdomofloathing.com) Addicted is me
So, basically if I'm understanding this right, and correct me if I'm wrong, the Initiative for Software Choice is lobbying to basically remove South Australia's choice to use Open Source Software from consideration and more or less force them into using closed source software. Kind of ironic. Groups with names that don't support their actual agenda like this should really be openly chastised by major media outlets for being hypocritical to the point of just being ridiculous, if not just made flat out illegal. Think of it as a truth-in-advertising kind of thing. A company/group/whatever's name is their best form of advertising, it forms the base of their brand recognition. So if their name is so out of whack from their goals, it's kind of like misleading advertising.
Request: ECM unit, 1000 km fullerene cable, 1 tactical nuclear weapon. Reason: Birthday party for foreign dignitary.
BRAVO, BRAVO!
... there are WAY more idiots here than I thought (and that's saying a lot!)
Successfully trolling this many people is quite an accomplishment
What a bunch of morons.
Corporate entities have an entitlement to tax dollars. It's plain common sense. By virtue of the theory of the vague reference to free markets it's plainly obvious that this makes sense and should be codified into law.
The problem is when individuals try to claim these entitlements. If we spend tax dollars on the poor, how are we going to have a competitive corporate sector? The logic is so simple, and yet we still have these attempts to force tax dollars to be spent on Open Source software.
"The ISC believes that if this 'preference' legislation were to be enacted it would severely limit software choices for South Australiaâ(TM)s government, harming not only its citizens, but also South Australiaâ(TM)s vibrant information and communications technology (ICT) industry."
Paraphrasing:
This bill will reduce the amount of money being payed to the Microsoft Corporation. They indirectly pay my salary so please don't do it.
I would urge anyone who hasn't done so to read the bill in question. It's a marvelous piece of plain speech quite unlike the normal utterings of a politician.
The Internet Software Consortium (ISC) wouldn't pull a stunt like this! Err, wait..
This wouldn't be the first time the State Government has done something silly. While I think that Open Source stuff doesn't get noticed much as far as State Supply goes, I don't think this is the right way to go about getting it noticed/used either.
I hear their water is bad too. I also hear Adelaide is worse than Canberra when it comes to night life.
Always ask your lawyer before you sign the deal. Besides, "making the changes freely available" means giving people the source code if you give them the binaries. You don't have to give the binaries or source to anyone except the investment firm. The GPL also makes it clear that you and the investment firm can separately agree that they will not redistribute the binaries or code.
Replace your lawyer--he can't read. The GPL does not require you to license things under the GPL simply because they were compiled with gcc.
If you don't believe me, read it yourself.
And stop trolling.
-- . . ramblin' . . .
What's more, this is an old one.
In business as in democracy in these times, money will buy you a louder voice. Bills like these simply give a voice to the notion that you can use some of this software for free, and a lot of it is actually pretty good. IBM won't help here, because they simply want to use Linux as a way to charge you an arm and a leg for all of their other services. The language of choice is being twisted to limit the real choices of consumers and governments.
___
Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum.
But they have Penguins!
You say you want a revolution....
... I have to say that *my* opinion has been changed by the slashdot news items, and I think other peoples' may be too.
Normally, I like to choose the best software for the best application. However, the idea of public data is important.
The argument that convinced me was the pro-business alternatives that should be required: open data format, with full perpetual license to read and convert to other formats, should be acceptable for most purposes [not voting: The US demonstrates the flaws of closed-source vote tallying].
That said, I feel that even this requirement should stand only for the case of items of public record on computer. That is, you don't need MS Word to be open source/data format, if your only documents of record are on paper.
Now, people have had this flamewar going for who knows how long. But even flamewars can convince people. They moved me from "no regulation" to "encourage OSS".
After all, it is one person who decides which software to buy. But he's deciding for the property of others. Closed and open formats are not equal, therefore.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
H.o.l.y F.u.c.k. THat was unreal! Reel those bitches in, Ahab!
"global coalition of large and small companies committed to advancing the concept that multiple competing software markets should be allowed to develop and flourish unimpeded by government preference or mandate"
no problem here, you just go about your business as usual and if you put out something good enough to compete with what's given away for free we'll talk...
Anataka suki desu. Itsumo. Itsumademo.
From DearSouthAustraliaRann.pdf:
The ISC strongly supports the development and adoption of all kinds of software â" OSS, hybrid and proprietary. All models have a place in the highly competitive software market. Only in this manner, through vibrant and open competition, does the whole of the market thrive, and consumers â" both public and private â" reap tremendous benefits.
Standing in stark contrast to open competition are state-mandated software preferences. These âoepreferenceâ policies strip merit out of the process by using access to source code as a proxy for ICT project success.
End quote. So all they're saying is: don't limit your choices to OSS. What they're saying is no different from what we'd say if Oz.Gov decided only to buy MS software.
Oz.Gov could easily comply with this, and simultaneously come up with a fairer method of choosing software, by simply requiring projects that need software to evaluate the cost/benefit ratio of all (or at least several) possibilities. They could require this to include at least one OSS alternative, or to balance the number of OSS solutions with the number of CSS solutions considered, with no loss of fairness. Cost of OSS is not zero, and the cost of the specialist Linux admin you have to hire needs to be considered against the easier to use Windows box that just about anyone can use. Hiring a programmer to implement the changes you need also needs to be considered against negotiation of a support deal that gets the features needed implemented by the closed source vendor. Then there's the risk factor - a support contract is perpetual, but if your specialist Linux/OSS techie quits or encounters the proverbial bus you're in a big hole.
Not everyone is a wannabe Linux hacker; those with business goals rather than tech goals need to make business decisions, not tech decisions.
What happened to the parent?? First it was there as first post and now it has gone!! Was it modded down so much that it literally dissappeared? Or was this some editorial decision made by the slashdot maintainers?
In the Bill itself, its seems to be addressing "Mr President". Im unsure of whom this bill is being proposed too, but if its a Parliament bill, wouldn't it be addressed to Mr Speaker or Mr Premier?
Secondly, this ISC mob seem to be pro choice, as long as that choice is from a commercial product. From the article -
"...look to the competitive software market to acquire the best solution for a given need."
From their members page, i can see a few more noticeable companies, including Microsoft, yet I cannot identify any open-source companies. Not too much "choice" there, i think.
Part of the implied social contract of any representative government is to adopt policies and legislation that are in the public interest.
It is in the public interest for high-quality, low-cost or no-cost open source software to exist and be available to all levels of society.
It is also in the public interest for their governments to be run in a cost-effective manner. Unless there is a specific technical requirement that open source software cannot meet, there is no substantive reason why OSS should not be considered and adopted in the government sector. This doesn't even address the issue of locking a government into a proprietary solution.
Contrary to the lobbyists, the bill doesn't prevent proprietary solutions from being used. It merely states a preference for OSS as a guiding principle in the decision-making process for procurement "wherever practicable."
This would foster more competition (not less) and hopefully result in higher-quality software on all fronts.
This sort of enlightened legislation definitely falls under the category of a Public Good.
"A public authority must, in making a decision about the procurement of computer software for its operations, have regard to the principle that, wherever practicable, a public authority should use open source software in preference to proprietary software."
So basically, what they're saying is that the government should, instead of using software that is generally low or no cost and can be modified to fit the government's unique needs, that they should use more costly proprietary software that can't be modified, so that they have to conform to whatever the program can do instead of editing the program to create more features, resulting in inefficiency.
I wonder what the Australian taxpayers would have to say about that?
Also, this bill in no way forces the authorities to use OSS if there are no OSS solutions with adequate features, so either the ISC create software that's better than OSS, or they don't get picked. Sounds fair to me.
You are dead right. Our busniess was foolish to skip on legal advice, and we has to release early versions of our software under the GPL.
To any business owners / managers reading this: Please, please don't listen to the Linux Maniacs. It's cheaper to avoid the GPL altogether.
if only you had released a windows distribution instead of trying that whole linux thing, huh?
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Adelaide Fairy Penguins
As someone who's just started meddling in the NSW (Australia)public service (local government) after several years in private IT sector, I see the call for open source in the best interest of our clients, i.e the public.
People are becoming alot more concerned with how public money is being spent. Government not only has the opportunity to save money, but also can start giving back to the public by contributing, and most importantly being seen to be contributing, to opensource software which tax payers can then use for themselves.
Although I'm not strictly in an IT position, I am known as one of the IT guys, who can unlock peoples accounts when they are unable to enter their l/p properly after 3 goes.
Unfortunately, it seems, the IT professionals who take up positions in local government come from the bottom of the IT barrel (including myself), often stepping over from other positions and taking up the 'IT person' status, and therefore lack an understanding of possibilities that open source software hold, and have been brought about already by private businesses. With a couple of years working for a small town ISP, looking after half a dozen Linux servers which ran the business, I have developed a opensource/linux background. (Oh, and of course.... constant reading of slashd^H^H^H^H^H^H^ linux Howto's)
Of the several people I have mentioned opensource, prominantly linux, software to, they have been baffled. Downloading the latest win32 OpenOffice is a great first step. Especially with the Export to pdf button.
I will be pushing opensource initiatives, taking on the burden of being the opensource mole, with already open office looking to replace our current proprietry office suite, linux on our main file/backup server, two NT2000 servers look to be replaced by a single linux server, and an old server resurected into a internet gateway. Hey... who thinks I can turn this into a reality TV show??? can't be any worse then....
It would appear to me that the ISC is grossly misrepresenting their membership base by stating that 'together the ISC and CompTIA have 110 corporate and individual members in Australia'. I would suggest that a vast majority of those are individuals 'looking for the tools to develop [their] career[s]'. I would go so far as to say that without surveying their membership base, to say that members of the parent organisation are aligned with the values of its subsidiary is misleading, and if I were a CompTIA member I would be most unimpressed by this misrepresentation. If you happen to be a CompTIA member, perhaps you should make it clear that you do not necessarily agree with the ISC, and that these figures should therefore be taken with a grain of salt. In fact given this creative accounting, I would be wary of paying attention to anything this organisation has to say.
Hear, hear! These large and small companies should ALL be permitted to submit their Free / open source software to governments for consideration, on a level playing field.
Oh, what's that you say? Your company doesn't write Free / open source software? Well, I guess this isn't your market then, now is it?
"The software must be F/OSS" is discriminatory against proprietary software vendors in the same way that "the software cannot be a refrigerator" is discriminatory against Frigidaire.
If the proprietary vendors want to compete for an open source project, they're more than welcome. Hell, if Frigidaire wants to get into the F/OSS software business, they're more than welcome to submit bids too.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
Here's a link that shows that if he had read slashdot, he would know that the Linux kernel supports the Tolkien Ring.
There is a difference. Open Source is free (usually) which makes a difference is all else is equal. When all else is not equal, Open Source can be modified to suit, which in itself if a powerful benefit, particularly if Gov wants to install a few thousand seats - amortising a mod may be easy.
I agree with this post.
If the government buys Microsoft software, it will have to pay for software and ALSO have to pay for support only available from a single source and outside the country. If it buys open source software, it only has to pay for support and has a variety of competing companies, including investing tax money back into local economy. A government has a duty to minimize costs and if possible re-invest money into local economy, don't you think?
Now consider a private business or a citizen. If a government produces documents using proprietory software, s\he will probably also have to use the same proprietory software. If OSS is used, multiple commercial vendors will support it and people will be able to access the data using OSS software without spending additional money and on the platform of their choice.
I am not saying all software should be open source. Some projects are so expensive (think realistic 3d games) or unpleasent (think Cobol IDE) to program that the cost can only be recovered with large scale software sales. But if the open source is already available, the government should take advantage of it to save costs for itself and for private entities it interacts with.
South Australia has a history of legal innovation. Indeed, beyond the issues of suffrage for which they are well known, the system of land registration known as Torrens Title has been exported widely. One of the most interesting aspects of this is the legal definition of open source that has been provided in the Act. I am sure that JMS would be disappointed with the phrase "open source" being the legally enshrined thing for which the government departments must make consideration. I too would prefer to find "Free Software" as the phrase, even "Software Libre", but the name concerns me little.
My question to the reading populace is are we happy with the definition? It is always difficult to get such things right and ammendments can always be made to refine things, but is the definition as it stands even adequate? I think it is adequate, in fact I would go further and think that as a generic description it is actually very good.
"The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
This coming from the same government that just put forward several million dollars towards a Linux supercomputer.
Both are right from their viewpoints, but the problem is that one is focussed on the present and one is focussed on the future. And, unfortunately, the Past, the last element of the trinity of time, (Past Present & Future) heavily influences the trajectory from the Present to the Future, i.e. the massive adoption of Windows and the talent developed around it.
Lobbyists want me to focus on the Present because there paychecks are from week to week, while Linux-Spirited want me to focus on the future because their spirit gets strokes from knowing that the world may be a better place a few years down in the Future. So, when you look at what impels the Closed Source and what impels the Open Source advocate, the motivational engines are different. And if the motivational engines are different, is this battle really about personalities ?
I have the full opportunity to design a small office for an Asian Sports Body. I love the idealism of OSS, and also KNOW that the future belongs to it if the world turns out the way it should, but may have to sign my office to a Windows shop. A request for help in making this choice last week on Slashdot got me some good responses along the same lines. Why ? Because in the PRESENT Windows Platform is big enough to probabilistically hold solutions to all the problems I am likely to come across, but in Linux the world is small enough that statistically I am sure to run into problems for which solutions don't exist.
Two different viewpoints - one by which I select Windows and a different one by which I reject Linux in the PRESENT. And I accept one probabilistically, and reject another statistically.
But I choose Windows over Linux only because I have to choose today, in the Present. If I could broaden my horizon for a year or two, then it is possible that the tradeoff I have designed for Win vs. Linx won't be so lop-sided. And hence, if I could broaden my horizons a better case can be made for Linux. Bottomline, in a narrow window of time I choose Windows or other "closed source" software, but in a broader window of time I choose Linux.
I like to look at this issue as if the battle been set and both the Closed and Open guys are playing their roles on the stage. These battles have to be fought, and who fights them is not that important. What people must do has been predecided by the role they have been cast in, which is based on their motivational engine, which is based on the orientation in time that they can afford to have.
Well, after all this Matrix-like discussion, I hate to come to a cliche conclusion, but, can we cut out these personal attacks, and hash out the real issues? But, again, what is reality ? Maybe it is the Matrix. Wait, does that mean Linus is Neo?
To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies
if the current bill was advising to try proprietary software before open source you'd think it was ridiculous so why isn't the reverse true?
Because we generally prefer our governments not to pay money for something they can get for free. Putting free and non-free stuff on equal footing invites corruption.
Spending money should require special justification, while not spending money shouldn't. And in the case of, say, Microsoft licenses, we aren't talking a little money, we are talking a huge amount of money.
I work in SA Government.
And where we work, basically, unofficial policy, if it doesn't come with source, don't use it.
Then why are you reading this and not writing a letter yourself sharing your views on the situation. I am sure that the views of Australian citizens will weigh in more than those of a potentially biased American based organisation backed by a company who will be directly adversely affected by the passing of this bill.
It is obvious that there are plenty of reasons to use FOSS in a government environment. If there is not a FOSS product for a given task (high end databases, specialised reporting applications, etc.) then the best product may indeed be closed source. If two products are similar in features/price then FOSS should prevail. The government still gets software which meets their needs, often significantly cheaper (especially in the long run), and the taxpayer benefits at the expense of proprietary software vendor(s) who are often (but not necessarily always) charging a ridiculous amount of money for an inferior product.
I, speaking as a human, dont give a flying fuck what license a government agency is under for using software. If you disagree, you're a fucking moron.
The problem is when they need software to be developed for them. Then it should be open-source- What the people pay for, the people should get.
How does this work? Government agency B wants to use some software, so they buy it. Then they want something new developed for it, so they go to the software company that makes it, give them money, and say "make it."
All code written on the dime of the government is released into the open. It doesnt matter if it doesnt work by itself, because not the whole program was created by the government. What the people pay for, the people should get- it's unfair to expect more.
All other things I would mention are covered fully IN THE FUCKING ARTICLE.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
1980 Called, and they want their Troll Back!
I'm not Seth.
Luckily the software that tallies the votes is closed source, so the outcome should be the way the ISC wants anyway.
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
- The choice is so vast that more resources would be expended on the act of choosing than on the product chosen
- You are the present supplier of a product which is likely to be deemed inferior by the criteria applied for judgement.
If (1), this says: the market is saturated, all software is much of a one-ness, there is nothing to choose between it and you may as well pick the one with the prettiest box. If (2), this says: software suppliers -- or the beneficiaries of, or apologists for, their corruption and selfishness -- are influencing governments.What does the empirical evidence suggest?
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
''The article doesn't detail the intricacies of the law...''
No need to guess about the bill - here's the text of the proposed legislation. See the bold text for the important part:
[BIL148-A.LCA]
[Advance (1)]
South Australia
[Prepared by the Parliamentary Counsel on the instructions of the Hon. I. Gilfillan, M.L.C.]
STATE SUPPLY (PROCUREMENT OF SOFTWARE) AMENDMENT
BILL 2003
A BILL FOR
An Act to amend the State Supply Act 1985.
[OPC-LC]
Contents
Part 1â"Preliminary
1. Short title
2. Amendment provisions
Part 2â"Amendment of State Supply Act 1985
3. Insertion of Part 3A
Part 3Aâ"Special provisions relating to supply operations of public authorities
17A. Principle applying to the procurement of computer software
The Parliament of South Australia enacts as follows:
Part 1â"Preliminary
Short title
1. This Act may be cited as the State Supply (Procurement of Software) Amendment Act 2003.
Amendment provisions
2. In this Act, a provision under a heading referring to the amendment of a specified Act amends the Act so specified.
Part 2â"Amendment of State Supply Act 1985
Insertion of Part 3A
3. After Part 3 insert:
Part 3Aâ"Special provisions relating to supply operations of public authorities
Principle applying to the procurement of computer software
17A. (1) A public authority must, in making a decision about the procurement of computer software for its operations, have regard to the principle that, wherever practicable, a public authority should use open source software in preference to proprietary software.
(2) In this sectionâ"
"distribute" means distribute for free or on payment of the reasonable costs of distribution;
"open source software" means computer software the subject of a licence granting a person a rightâ"
(a) without any limitation or restriction, to use the software for any purpose; and
(b) without any limitation or restriction, to make copies of the software for any purpose; and
(c) without any limitation or restriction, to access or modify the source code of the software for any purpose; and
(d) without payment of a royalty or other fee, to distribute copies ofâ"
(i) the software (including as a component of an aggregate distribution containing computer software from several different sources); or
(ii) a derived or modified form of the software, (whether in compiled form or in the form of source code), under the same terms as the licence applying to the software;
"proprietary software" means computer software that is not open source software.
PRINTED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE GOVERNMENT PRINTER
From CompTIA's website (yes, http://softwarechoice.org is a pointer to CompTIA):
Protects and advances the interests of the information and communications technology industries before foreign governments, federal and state legislatures and agencies, including regulators. CompTIA's public policy staff is located in Washington, DC and Brussels with advocacy capabilities in Canada and several states.
'Information and communications technology industries' are the keywords. The usual suspects. 15,000 member companies according to their website. Who's interests do you think they represent?
My journal has hot
how many hours it took to copy an 18M file from one linux box to another.
Sometimes affirmitive action policies are considered neccessary in order to force employers to think outside the box, and consider employees that may not be in the normal "zone of comfort" for the employer in question. Once the bar is raised, and the targetted group is "inside the zone of comfort" once more, the policies could potentially be considered a success.
In order to communicate the SA legislation effectively to other legislators, it shouldn't really be considered a 'statement of preference'.. perhaps it should be referred to as a "software affirmitive action policy".
Let's just take a few lines from the ISC letter, liberally changing "software" references to "people with green eyes" (nods to William Peters classic blue-eyes brown-eyes psychological study). Lets further pretend that green-eyed people are considered to be a "lower caste" by most members of society, and though just as capable as brown, and blue eyed people, are generally not considered equal by employers.
On behalf of the Initiative for eye-colour choice, I write to express our concerns regarding the proposed employment bill, which gives undue preference to people with green eyes, over people with other coloured eyes. The IEC believes that if this "preference" legislation were to be enacted, it would severely limit employment opportunities for South Australia's government, harming not only its citizens, but also South Australia's vibrant government employment sector.
The IEC is a global association overwhelmingly made up of, and supported by, blue and brown eyed people, with over 15,000 members in 89 countries. The IEC strongly supports equal opportunity for people with blue, brown and green eyes, and believe that "preference" policies may not select the most meritorious potential employee in any one project, at the expense of providing equal employment opportunities to green-eyed people.
Sometimes, a government needs to put the good of the many, over the good of the few; and software preference legislation has the potential to level the playing field a little for open source tools, and open-source-related services, in the mind of government project managers.
As a developer of BOTH commercial and open source software, I think there is certainly scope for affirmitive action in software choice.
Red.
Excellent Fp for the Clit!
I agree with this post.
Yes, the Clit still lives on....
Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
Under this reasoning, Open Source would have several major points in its favour - mainly:
Given all those initial advantages before you even start looking at the pros and cons of the actual software, I can't quite work out why Open Source feel they need this law in force to give them extra (and IMO, unneeded given the list above) advantages.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
The government has the right to say which type of software it wants to use. If it finds open source software to be more secure or practical for whatever reason, then so be it.
It in no way limits competition. Any software vendor can still offer a solution to the government - they just have to conform to their requirements of making it open source.
I'm an Australian, and I for one would like to see this bill passed.
It's GNU/Linux dammit!
freeware does not equal no cost.
So I am not sure your argument is completely valid.
1 - Does the fact that their webpage is translated only in spanish and portuguese mean that MS or any related company is concerned mainly about linux/OSS gaining market shares in latin america?
2 - are they going to behave like SCO did and terminate their Linux certification ?
(BTW, what's this certification worth? is it better than RHCE or LPI?)
When was the last time you heard "this" group go on about how a spec for MS Word should be opened up to include other software?
I drank what? -- Socrates
:)
:)
It seems to me that you are kidding!
"GNU Protective Licence", MS "shared source" being fair...
why should you decompile kernel if you don't even know, that ext2 does not need to be defragmented?
And strange ideas of "your lawyer".
If this was a joke - it was a good one, even a little too good!
If this was not the joke - I feel sorry for those "large companies" you are consultant to!
I'd like to avoid people who just don't smell the coffee :)
By far one of the more entertaining Trolls I've read.
...Drop Open Source Bill Is this 'Bill' some kind of opensource bomb???
Original Title:
Lobbyists Urge South Australia To Drop Open Source Bill
After Slashdot discussion:
Open Source Lobbyists Urge South Australia To Drop Bill
"A global coalition of large and small companies committed to advancing the concept that multiple competing software markets should be allowed to develop and flourish unimpeded by government preference or mandate."
Ya, right. I bet these guys don't care one bit when a government bans open source from it's computers though. These free market assholes are so full of shit.
The Premiers website
t =R amsay
;)
http://www.sa.alp.org.au/people/people.html?sea
The Premiers email address.
mailto:ramsay@parliament.sa.gov.au
Mod this up quicksmart
Someone must be cybersquatting slashdot.org . How else could you explain "lobbyists" was not written as superlative "lobbiest" ?
Under the agreement, it doesn't matter what the Government wants, they eat what they are fed.
Personally, having seen it from the inside, EDS are not big supporters/promoters of OSS. Why? Because when you collect $$s for every support call you take and for every server you have to support, you don't necessarily want things...
Ahh... preeching... converted...
The other thing is that even if EDS embraced OSS, the development of various pieces of software would more than likely not be performed by local companies/professionals.
Bruce
To me, open source software will always be, first and foremost, 'a vast opportunity for South Australia'.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
No nonsense. You made a fine summative post of my personal opinions, Jeroen. (not trolling). I'd be more than happy to explain why for any of the points of you wish and am willing to back it up and support it.
I believe it's called "English".
Cheers
Stor
"Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
Anyone know how to do our lobbying?
Is there anyway we could get a good speaker that is sort of local to go talk to some of the more undecided politicians? Maybe Rusty or Tridge? These two bring money into Australia and some of that can be directly tracked to South Australia.
LinuxSA has a bit more on the propsed law.
This law will get passed if the local goverment understands that supporting open souce does being in people all over the world through things like linux.conf.au.
Soooo
Let's make it mandatory world-wide to use OSS
and after we have the same market saturation
then remove the laws and see how many people want
to go back to paying and paying and paying for
slavery and blackmail!!!!
That would be fair wouldn't it?
Every see a free'd people want to go back under
a dictator once they taste freedom...
It's no wonder all these bullshit organizations
with big sounding names want to protest!
Yeah it's not great for straight dudes like myself but it seems quite ok if you're gay: there's a pretty big gay subculture in Adelaide.
The Arts and wine (Barossa Valley) in Adelaide are excellent.
The water is pretty ordinary but probably better than most developed areas around the world (how's the water in your home town?).
I live in Melbourne and if I had a dollar for every time I've heard "I moved here from Adelaide" i'd be as rich as the dotcom era claimed i'd be. Not that I (or anyone else for that matter) mind.
Cheers
Stor
p.s. NOTHING is worse than Canberra for night life. Whoever told you that nonsense is wrong.
"Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
I would rather have a law that made open standards a requirement. Exactly as Bruce Perens says with his Sincere Choice initiative as a response to "The Initiative for Software Choice".
Programs compiled with gcc don't have to be GPLed. If they did, Apple wouldn't be using it in Mac OS X (the Darwin kernel is open-source but not GPL-compatible, the high-level bits like Aqua are proprietary.)
- the Open Source on one side, which is depicted as one software vendor
- the rest of the software industry
I am surprised no one has pointed that out yet (or maybe I didn't dig deep enough in the comments).
If these software vendors want their products to be used by the Australian Government, why don't they release these under a suitable license ? Isn't this "Initiative for software choice" a disguised attempt at protecting the very restrictive clauses of their licenses ?
Or more accurately: it would severely limit what we can impose as license clause on the South Australian Governement.
Linux's lack of Token Ring support?
:-)
You say that like it's a *bad* thing
I find it hard to believe that anyone's still using Token Ring in this day and age. As the vendors dry up, does it still make sense to pay 3 times as much for 1/8th the BW of 100 megabit Ethernet? All for the sake of "deterministic networking"?
Anyway, it looks like the client got what they deserved in the end.
By the way, as others have suggested, you need to spend some quality time with a good IP lawyer, reading *and undertanding* the GPL.
Go to:
http://softwarechoice.org/init_members.asp
Copy the member list into a text file (company.txt).
Then do:
% cat company.txt | sed -e '1,$s/.*(\(.*\))$/\1/g' | sort | uniq -c
You will get the following:
1 Australia
3 Austria
1 Bahrain
2 Beirut
2 Brazil
1 Canada
2 Costa Rica
7 Egypt
2 France
1 Germany
1 Greece
1 Ireland
2 Italy
2 Jordan
1 Kuwait
3 Lebanon
1 Malta
2 Netherlands
2 Pakistan
2 Panama
1 Peru
2 Philippines
2 Poland
1 Portugal
1 Puerto Rico
1 Romania
1 Russian Federation
3 Saudi Arabia
2 South Africa
3 South Korea
1 Thailand
1 Turkey
12 UAE
4 UK
38 USA
1 Venezuela
There is a total of 113 companies, out of them 33 are Middle-eastern Mulsim country originated companies (if I include Pakistan even though its not in the Middle-East).
I'm not trying to imply anything racist, I'm just very curious since the ration here is very unlikely any other technical organizaion where 95% of the members are either from the USA, Western Europe, or the Far East.
I second that, wholeheartedly!
The 'Sincere Choice' principle is exactly what will serve Open Source software best in the long run. Not by making use of OS mandatory in government institutions etc., but by providing a level playing field - open standards, competetion by merit between OS and proprietary software.
zWhat would an EWOULDBLOCK block, if an EWOULDBLOCK could block would? -- me
As I've stated in another reply under this subject: Strategy first, then tactics, then operational issues.
The benefits of OSS usually are more on a strategic level. If you can do without those benefits for now and the drawbacks won't keep you from enjoying those benefits a few years down the road, you're right. If not (read: stuck to propriety standards without a way to get out) then maybe you should think again about those 'benefits' you get from going with MS Windows right now.
Whatever you choose, please remember that if you think you've done everything to make the right choice, everbody proclaiming you are nuts to choose whatever you choose is wrong (and probably a troll). Good luck on your decission.
Karma? What's that again?
Whether there actually are such problems for a given domain of "things I want to do" is unfortunately irrelevant. These days it already takes me minutes to find a category of software that has no (acceptable) Open Source solutions.
With my new Gentoo installation I haven't had a single problem (installation is somewhat tricky but after that it's like a dream).
The reality is that it's not even a question of operating system. Most popular Open Source applications work just fine on Windows. After slowly changing the applications into Open Source the operating system question starts losing relevance.
The question should not be whether to use closed or open software, instead, it should be Could some of the products we use could be replaced with Open Source alternatives ? More important than Open Source are Open Dataformats.
Software should be free as in speech, but if we also get some free beer, all the better.
Quite, in this case. As Slashdot blurb reads, the ISC is a "global coalition of large and small companies committed to advancing the concept that multiple competing software markets should be allowed to develop and flourish unimpeded by government preference or mandate." Well, great. But in this case, there *was* a competing market, and the government chose the open source model at least as a starting block (nothing more). The hypocrisy of the ISC lies in the fact that they are not, in fact, proponents of competing markets in the event that they don't win. It's like playing Monopoly with your five year old nephew, they really want to play, they don't really understand the rules, and if they lose then they cry that you must have cheated.
Looking at it another way, what *are* they trying to accomplish, insubordination? I know if my boss said "write this application with MFC", and I handed him a Java app, he'd be miffed. On a grander scale, a government body here tells its employees and departments what kind of apps they should use, much as requiring a business to be an MS house. Even if you didn't see that proprietary companies were the constituent body of the ISC, surely you must find it hypocritical that they only go after open source shops and not when a government dept decides to go all Windows.
--- What
Of course they'd have to rebuild their consulting staff since all the MCSEs would be useless.
You can lobby the premier directly through this web-based email form I met with Richard Alston, the Federal Australian Minister for Technology a few years ago at an awards ceremony and spent a half hour with him explaining open source and the famous role some Australians play in it (e.g. Andrew Morton - kernel, Paul 'Rusty' Russell iptables, Andrew 'tridg' Tridgell - Samba, rsync ...) and found he was genuinely interested. He asked for some submissions which I sent to him. You are never sure of a result, however the Federal Government recently issued a pro open source policy, so at least I think I did no harm.
So, you can probably help by offering your support, particularly any South Australians out there.
I agree that the key is Open Data formats.
Once sufficent people move to standard formats, and a good set of tools are available to visually manage the data in standard formats, (GUI with Win and Outlook like capabilities) - people will not notice when Windows is slipped from under them and replaced with another OS. The POWER of Windows is Just the GUI that it has created, and a lot of sunken investment of time in learning that GUI. Once the GUI become OUI (Object User Interface) or BUI (Bubble Use Interface) the Windows GUI paradigm will be replaced with something more powerful. And I can feel it in my guts that it is coming - it will almost be akin to a Graphical implementation of XML - really a graphical implementation not based on characters like it is currently.
Personally, I have tried to move to standard formats, and that is where I try to keep all my data.
Basically, If I could do my little bit in separating the Document from the View (which MS has tried to blur for the user), I believe I would be doing my bit for the OS software.
So, yes, you are right. Open Dataformats are the key.
To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies
Set a precedent so that the lawmakers will not buy into an unrelated but sure-to-happen future legislation - the consideration of open FORMATS, which is the real deal.
Somewhere here on Slashdot there was a story about it a few days ago. Could someone dig it up? It has to be announced loud and clear that open FORMATS, not open sources, must be considered - at least it'll silence these "procompetition" groups.
I love these names. Initiative for Software Choice. I wonder if the people that think them up can help smirking when they unveil it to their paymasters.
It reminds of election time here in the good ole US of A, when I hear radio ads "Paid for by Citizens for Better Government" or some other such name.
Of course, the one-two punch analogy to elections won't be complete until opponents suggest that "pro open source" is "pro pedophilia" and "pro terrorist".
"Provided by the management for your protection."
2003-05-08 05:46:45 New South Australian Government law to prefer Open Source (articles,announce) (rejected)
from a lobbying point of view, wouldn't it make sense that the OS movement had an extra month of visibility, rather than what has actually happened .. ??
it looks like what happened in this case, is that /. has only picked up the story AFTER the mainstream media has picked it up (The Age) - now that's sad.
I always though that the whole point of /. is that it LED the mainstream IT media in breaking stories, obviously I've been labouring under a misaprehension.
9 rejections over 3 years and going strong !
From the proposed law:
Principle applying to the procurement of computer software 17A.
(1) A public authority must, in making a decision about the procurement of computer software for its operations, have regard to the principle that, wherever practicable, a public authority should use open source software in preference to proprietary software.
Personally, I think that is almost as bad as giving preference to a proprietary solution.
Let each tool stand on its own merits.
Thank you very much for this enlightening story of the true story of GPL is the business world.
You have definately shown that this asinine 'license' is nothing but a burden to free enterprise.
Huzzah! to you sir!
CMDRTACO CHECK YOUR EMAIL!
Jesus christ, I can't believe this! Does anybody here know a single thing about how free markets work??
capability to pad their revenue.
It's called "profit". It's not a bad thing.
then selling to their customers at as high a price they can get away with.
That's called demand. Any business that isn't charging as much as they can isn't being run correctly.
I am so tired of these idiotic "profit is evil" posts.
OK, yeah, such systems are often as boneheaded as the problem they purport to solve. But this is the way governments wield power, by fiat. So recommending a marginal product over mainstream products that have expensive representation of their interests is an equalizing move.
I don't approve of nation-states in general, but I do understand why they resort to these options.
Damn those pesky terrorists
Open data formats are the key. I am held to a MSWindows system. More specifically, I am held to a Win95 system. There is this application with a proprietary data file format that doesn't run under anything else. And it has years of data in it.
This is a real problem, as my old Win95 disks won't install on a new computer (either the disks are corrupt, or they are missing needed drivers). And the old computer is dying. I keep hoping that Wine or WineX will come to the rescue, but so far they have failed to run the application. And it was written by a small software house that went out of business, sold it's software lines, and the new company wan't interested in the to-me vital program.
Open data file formats would have provided a way out. As it is, neither open source nor closed source software is helping (though I keep hoping for the next release of Wine).
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The first at least should be able to run Win95 just fine (it emulates ne2k net IIRC and has it's own VGA drivers) but costs some money. There's a free evaluation version to play with though.
Software should be free as in speech, but if we also get some free beer, all the better.
why opensource users are "paranoid". The world truly is out to get them. It's not fun when your livelyhood not mention your hobby are being attacked on all sides by big money.
My name is Mike, and I thank you for having the courage to come forward with your problem.
The concept of having access to source code was very appealing to us, as we'd be able to modify the kernel to meet our exacting standards which we're unable to do with Microsoft's products.
Bravo! [clapping]
Although we met several technical challenges along the way (specifically, Linux's lack of Token Ring support and the fact that we were unable to defrag its ext2 file system)
I'm sensing anger here, but I feel it is a bit misplaced. Linux does support Token Ring generally. Unlike FAT32, ext2 does not need defragmentation. Perhaps you should confer with a support group that discusses your distro?
Although we had planned for no one outside of this company to ever use, let alone see the source code, we were now put in a difficult position.
Hold on a second, if I understand you correctly, you are concerned that under the GPL which states that you have to release the source code of your modifications if you plan to distribute the binaries of your code, you will have to release your source code. But at the same time, you don't plan on distributing any code outside of the company. I don't understand your confusion, my son, but if you never plan on releasing anything outside of your company, you never need to worry about releasing the source code.
I think the biggest thing keeping Linux from being truly competitive with Microsoft is this GPL. Its draconian requirements virtually guarentee that no business will ever be able to use it.
Damn it! You were doing so well. Why did you fall off the wagon. Was it me? Did the community not do enough to support you?
I may reconsider if Linux switches its license to something a little more fair, such as Microsoft's "Shared Source". Until then its attempts to socialize the software market will insure it remains only a bit player.
INTERVENTION! Here's some reading material for you. Open source principles,GPL, and where you can find help. Please read them and when you're ready, you can rejoin the group.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I don't see what the ISC is so worried about. If the best solution is a proprietary software, then the gov't will choose proprietary. However, this bill simply urges the gov't to explore all the options, eventually saving money. [Not to mention providing jobs for us geeks who know so much about OSS, and Unix :-) ]
Amoung the thing that they do they offer various types of certifications to programmers. Strangely they offer Linux certification. I suggest that people boycott this program while the parent body continues to undermine open source world wide
I must ask this: why is ANY law that mandates preference for any solution over any other solution good? I think Open Source is wonderful...and that's exactly why I don't think it needs this. In the end, assuming competency of the one in charge, the best solution is most likely to prevail. Naturally, there's going to be deviation from situation to situation on this, but when you're talking about legislation you have to deal with averages, and I feel that this holds true. In truth, I think that if someone ISN'T competent to make the proper choice, I'd rather they not choose Open Source because of some legal requirement or prodding; if something gets all borked up, they'll just point to Open Source software as the cause.
The Open Source world of software came out of nowhere, and didn't require big marketing budgets, lobbyists, or snappy ad campaigns...and it certainly doesn't need a law to pressure others into using it.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
Cool! You've accidentally invented a useful new verb:
To preech: To orate stridently. From "preach" and "screech".
Time and time again, we've seen M$ offer special deals to large organisations that "decide" to use OSS by decree -- governments, universities, companies. (Could this be the motivation for issuing these decrees on the basis of price alone in the first place?)
We've also seen M$ or their proxies (e.g. SCO) take steps to punish organisations that stick with their OSS decisions. The threat implicit in the "ISC"'s choice (and shame on them for appropriating the good name of the real ISC) is that the first hint of any problem with OSS, and they'll raise a ruckus in the media and try to discredit the public officials who did not choose " the best " software for the job, but made an "ideological" choice.
The only argument that can stand up to this onslaught is that data formats need to be open, so that the owners of the data can maintain their ownership. This argument has been made brilliantly in other contributions to this discussion. We might add to that: the owners of the data need to be able to see the source code of the programmes and operating systems (particularly the network components) which manipulate and communicate those data in order to avoid theft, misuse and misappropriation of those data.
Australia and New Zealand have exceptionally strong privacy laws -- and these laws are enforced. People, government bodies, and even large corporations with deep pockets take these laws very seriously, even though Echelon seems to be exempt ( NB: This is a different discussion.). One way that South Australia could help itself stick by its decision to use OSS in the face of these lobbyists would be to refer to its own privacy legislation as the prime driver for OSS, rather than price alone.
Govts. shouldn't pass laws mandating which software should be used. Let govt. depts. decide for themselves which software they want to use. Their arguement is that simple. Yet there are a number of pro open source people who "just don't get it".
Vote for Pedro
VMWare doesn't work, which is part of the reason that I suspect that my install disks are corrupted.
(An earlier version of VMWare installed Win95 alright, but didn't support the necessary functionality to execute the program...but that was over a year ago.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I think the difference now is that there is a response from industry/MS to the bill? ie the best news is news about conflict.
Microsoft software is 'mandated'.
We had a minister wanting to deploy Notes (IBM).
Request was denied because of the 'attractive Microsoft licencing the whole of the South Australian Government enjoys'.
Ian Gilfillan, the South Australian Democrat, who introduced a bill to amend state software procurement policies, says he expects to know the fate of the bill by the end of July this year.
and the werewolves came...
and they ate him...
and they drank his beer...
TheHon.IANGILFILLAN obtained leave and introÂduced a bill for an act to amend the State Supply Act 1985. Read a first time.
TheHon.IANGILFILLAN: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
In spite of its rather ponderous title, the bill is about the use of open source software by the government of South AusÂtralia. Open source software is an unusual concept and one that will take a little time to explain. I will deal first with ordinary products. When we buy something, we usually buy the right to use that thing in any way we see fit. For example, if you buy a car, you can add roof racks or a tow bar and you can even paint the car a different colour. The key thing about buying something is that it becomes your property and you can do with it as you will, even to the point of selling it on to someone else. You can even break up a car into pieces and sell the pieces to different people.
518 Software: somehow we have been tricked into believÂing that software is a different kind of thing and many have accepted the idea that we do not own a piece of software once we buy it. In fact, some of the major suppliers of software have moved to a revenue model whereby it is necessary to continually pay rent for the right to use a product that has been purchased. Even stranger, we are not allowed to see the workings of the software so that we can check to make sure that it is doing what we expect or want it to do. If I continue with the car example, this would be equivalent to buying a car but never being allowed to look under the bonnet to see what is inside. It is indeed a very strange situation where people are paying astonishingly large amounts of money on an on-going basis for very few rights. In many cases people are not even allowed to talk about their experiences with using a piece of software because of the narrow terms of the licence agreement that comes with that software.
The open source movement: in response to this and many other problems in the computer software industry, a worldÂwide movement of people has developed a set of competing software products that do not have restrictive licence agreements. In fact, the most common clause associated with open source software is that you can use the software in any way and modify it as you see fit, provided you include a full copy of the source code every time you sell the software to another party. As the source code of this software is available for anyone to see at any time, this code is robust and secure.
In South Australia this open source software movement is a vast opportunity for us. Our universities could be teaching computer science around open source products, allowing students to examine in intimate detail the workings of established products. Every student assignment has the potential to contribute to the body of functioning open source systems. Simply by forwarding their completed work to the relevant open source project, their code could become part of a greater work in publication. It is worth noting that some of the most widely used and recognised pieces of open source software have been developed here in Australia. As an example, the Samba project, which allows Linux computers to seamlessly integrate with windows networks, was develÂoped by a team primarily based in Canberra.
Because the open source paradigm uses a different business model, it is possible for student computers to be fully programmed with operating systems, developmen
There's always a choice. Even the choice to postpone or delegate a choice. :)
:)
I can't help but wonder if the South Australian government was to pass a law with a principle stating "software with few bugs should be preferred to software with lots of bugs", then the Initiative for Software Choice would still get irate. They might say the government should not take a stance on the type of software - software with few bugs should be given equal weighting to software with lots of bugs.
To say there is "both types of software" is clever. The nature of the process will always create two types of software: those that meet the requirements (set by the government) and those that don't.
If the ISC took its argument to the logical conclusion, then the government should accept without disadvantage any software that doesn't meet its requirements. Obviously this is going to help Microsoft's submission.
Andrew Scott
So you can imagine our suprise when we were informed by a lawyer that we would be required to publish our source code for others to use. It was brought to our attention that Linux is copyrighted under something called the GPL, or the Gnu Protective License. Part of this license states that any changes to the kernel are to be made freely available. Unfortunately for us, this meant that the great deal of time and money we spent "touching up" Linux to work for this investment firm would now be available at no cost to our competitors.
That seems like a fairly short-sighted opinion. If all the work that went into Linux was not available at no cost to competitors you would never had even gotten the chance to use, and hack, Linux yourself. Think of it like a marriage. You give and take, both (hopefully) ending up better in the end.
As I am still registered as a voter in South Australia, I felt it would be hypocritical of me not to write to Mr. Rann with a counter-argument. After all, I winge an awful lot about politicians being out of touch, if I didn't make an effort now that I have a connection to the issue, I wouldn't be able to keep on winging ;)
/. story, I hope to post it tonight. I may even put it up online since that's exactly what ISC did with their letter.
I wrote it within a few hours of the
There's a very important fact missing here - The South Australian Government has not introduced this bill - it was Ian Gilfillan who is a member of a minor (and fading) party - The Australian Democrats - who have about two seats in the least powerful part of the parliament (the Legislative Council). He can introduce whatever he likes on whatever basis he likes. However, it needs to get through the full parliament before becoming law.
..errr.. evolving. For instance, he seems to believe that OSS is no more than a better way of selling software ("...provided you include a full copy of the source code every time you sell the software to another party") and that the free nature of OSS is somehow optional (yes I know it's optional in theory, but not in practice).
Believe it or not, there are people in SA Government who have a real interest in OSS getting a proper hearing (all those comments about SA Govt being an EDS/MS shop are true). They are worried that the risk is that the bill will get canned (easily - see below), and in so doing, nuke their efforts to do something practical. One of those people is a very good friend of mine. Write a letter to the Govt and he will probably write the reply.
Anyway, if you read Mr Gilfillan's Hansard statement, you'll see that while is intentions are noble (That's what the Aus Dem's do), his understanding of OSS is
Also, the bill itself seems to me to exclude GPL from the definition of OSS ("... a licence granting a person a right...without any limitation or restriction, to use the software for any purpose"). It also defines proprietary software as "...computer software that is not open source software". So GPL or even Public Domain software is actuall Proprietary???
Finally, you can drive a truck through the bill anyway. All it says is that public authorities should merely "have regard to the principle that, wherever practicable" they give preference to OSS. Public servants call this "weazel words". Not hard to ignore. Effect - irritation only.
Just spotted this article with a South Australian Politician slating open source...7 51841%5E15306%5E%5Enbv%5E,00.html
http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,6