Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Open Source in Oregon

Posted by michael on from the smoke-filled-room dept.

Anonymous writes "MWVLUG's coordinator, Cooper Stevenson, has asked Linux Today to post this detailed history of events surrounding the battle to get open source software legislation enacted in the Beaver State in an effort to raise public awareness for the campaign."

12 of 125 comments (clear)

  1. Justifying costs isn't strange, is it? by tage · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What's so srtange about having to justify paying for something, it being software or something else? I know I would like expenses paid for by my tax money to be justified.

    Support costs will be added no matter what. Why not justify the extra expense of licensing?

    1. Re:Justifying costs isn't strange, is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Why not justify the extra expense of licensing? You mean, for a four year license, before the product is dropped so the parent corp can release the next version and demand relicensing?


      It's critical to divorce your processes from another corporations need for an income stream.

  2. What a surprise... by Hittite+Creosote · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The fate of a law is once again more influenced by what lobbyists want than what is in the interests of the people.
    It may be one man, one vote, but that man is the picture of a dead president printed on green paper, and the more of them you have, the more votes you have.

  3. Aren't votes more important that campaign funding? by Cooper_007 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I realise this sickening influence of lobbyists is something that won't be going away anytime soon, but aren't these senators weary of public backlash?

    I mean, there's the speaker of the house arguing against savings when other equally or more urgent sectors experience budget cuts. Don't voters care about such things? Aren't the voters ultimately the people responsible for just who's up there representing them?

    Is it really worth while to line your pockets with campaign contributions when ultimately nobody will vote for you anyways because you sold them out?

  4. Wouldn't it be more effective ... by zangdesign · · Score: 4, Insightful

    to have it posted somewhere besides a site that already advocates Open Source solutions? I mean, how about local newspapers?

    It's preaching to the converted, otherwise. I don't mean to sound like a troll, but c'mon guys. /. and LT readers are pretty well in favor of it already. How about telling someone who doesn't already know?

    --
    To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
    1. Re:Wouldn't it be more effective ... by Phroggy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      to have it posted somewhere besides a site that already advocates Open Source solutions? I mean, how about local newspapers?

      It's preaching to the converted, otherwise. I don't mean to sound like a troll, but c'mon guys. /. and LT readers are pretty well in favor of it already. How about telling someone who doesn't already know?

      Didn't read the article, did you? This article isn't preaching to the converted, because it's not preaching at all - it's about the lobbying process, not about the merits of Open Source software. The Oregonian (the state's largest newspaper) has already covered this, as the article mentioned.

      This article is specifically calling for Open Source advocates (such as those found on Slashdot) to take action by contacting their senators. This article is not written for the general public who may not already be well-informed on the merits of Open Source software. If you'd like to write such an article and send it to your local newspaper, feel free to do so.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    2. Re:Wouldn't it be more effective ... by antonrojo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This was an effective post in my mind. The slashdot community, while large and energetic has very little political voice in most issues. Any attempts to get techies involved in the hardball of real politics is a noble effort.

  5. Re:Aren't votes more important that campaign fundi by Spoing · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Don't voters care about such things? Aren't the voters ultimately the people responsible for just who's up there representing them?

    What I found most interesting was that untill the people outside of governmnet noticed that open source could help them directly they weren't interested in how it impacted the government they voted for!

    Politicians might be short sighted and highly influenced by lobyists, though it looks like the voters -- and all citizens in general -- also suffer from this.

    Who's in charge? Counting on human nature to remain the same, what would be necessary to change this?

    --
    A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
  6. Justify USING open source by Jonny+Royale · · Score: 3, Insightful
    You know what, the more I read the article, the less I agree with the original purpouse of that bill, as I read it from that article. If I read it correctly, the bill would mandate that state agencies that didn't use open source would be required to explain why they didn't. That, IMHO, seems a little stilted towards the "use open-source or else" camp.

    How about, instead, a bill that requires:
    1. All software choices made by state agencies include open source software as a possibility
    2. The results of any state run tests be made available for public review & opinion prior to the adoption of the software being tested

    This way, instead of the "or else" tone of the original bill, you get a more "let's level the playing field, and open the books to the paying public". That might get your legislators more amenable to passing that kind of bill.

    Just a thought..
    1. Re:Justify USING open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Sigh - Guys, you don't understand government spending.


      A bill that requires Open source to be investigate will result in exactly one thing - higher consultancy fees per acquisition.


      There are certain needs that Linux today cannot at all satisfy, and, yes, sometimes it's a lot cheaper if things work out of the box (or at least everyone runs into the same problems) than that a lot of local consultants that could theoretically be retained on demand but have to be hired for lonterm care contracts due to state regulations.


      As a side-note, and knowing the consultancy business somewhat personally (from a friend-of-a-client side), consultants love to dick with (err, customize) their solutions to the point where no one else stands a hope of maintaining them and then charge exorbitant fees on an annual basis in addition to the incidence response costs.


      There's a reason why industry and government dislike IT consultants, and it's not that consultants worked so incredibly well the last time.


      Say what you will about MS, but its cost are completely determinable upfront - and they are about the same as a RedHat Enterprise support license.


      So - why would anyone pay the millions required to change over if in the end, the cost is the same (and it's big business, not local folks that would profit)?

    2. Re:Justify USING open source by vsprintf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How about, instead, a bill that requires:

      • 1. All software choices made by state agencies include open source software as a possibility
      • 2. The results of any state run tests be made available for public review & opinion prior to the adoption of the software being tested

      That sounds good as long as #1 includes a provision that the OSS actually be evalutated against the requirements. Otherwise the consideration given OSS will be pretty minor after the 2-hour, glitzy, high-powered, vaporware demo by the COTS marketroids (and the backslap, wink, and nod from the local lobbyist).

  7. It's a sad day... by El · · Score: 3, Insightful

    when legislators in a financially strapped state insist on paying _more_ for something then they need to. Even if they have no intention of using anything but Microsoft software, the minute they present open source as a viable alternative, Microsoft will swoop in offering massive discounts as incentives to stay locked in to their proprietary solutions. Why anybody would intentionally work to block this negotiating tactic can only be explained as corruption. But then, these are the same people trying to introduce a bill to pass a law preventing the city of Portland from buying the local electric utility (PGE) from the now discredited Enron -- despite the fact that Portland had made no attempt yet to do so. Again, they're effective tying their own hands; in the latter case, they are preventing the city of Portland from using the threat of Eminent Domain to extract concessions from Enron. Why anbody would do this, short of being handed a stack of unmarked bills under the table by company executives, is beyond me...

    --

    "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney