Slashdot Mirror
Mass. Backs Down From Open Source Stance
MeanMF writes "eWeek reports that the state of Massachusetts has moved away from specifying that open source software be given preferential treatment over proprietary systems. Instead, they have chosen to focus on software that provides the best value and flexibility. This is a major reversal from their previous direction."
I don't see this as being bad for Open Source - because if Open Source is truly the best option for the state, they will choose it. It won't force the state to use it if it isn't right. That will make the software better in the long run - if it needs to improve to compete.
"This is a major reversal from their previous direction."
A major reversal would be if they said to avoid OSS altogether. Instead, they just made it fair to all involved. For all the benefits of OSS to be worth anything, the software has to do its job. If OSS is ready, you all have nothing to worry about. If it's not, then start coding.
"Derp de derp."
It seems more like a clarification to me:
The state's new Enterprise Open Standards Policy defines open standards as: "Specifications for systems that are publicly available and are developed by an open community and affirmed by a standards body."
While open standards aren't the same as open source, it certainly leans away from a Microsoft-style, vendor lock-in.
It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
Basically they are focusing on the important aspect of open source: Freedom. If you have closed-source software which does the job, but costs an arm and a leg to replace, you've got lock-in.. but if you have closed-source software that is begin used simply because it's BETTER, then you've excercised your choice, and are still free to choose a different solution in the future. This is good. It makes the closed-source software work hard to stay competitive.
Demand freedom and open standards. Open source software is the easy no-brainer way to get these things, but sometimes you actually need something that OSS doesn't supply. Fair enough.
The continued vitality of all software development models depends on the merits of their respective products, and not the method of development chosen. [pdf]
Which sounds great, but this is an organization that also supports evils such as the DMCA and DRM.
As for choice, I never understood why IT managers haven't been fired en masse when they've commited a business or university to Microsoft products. MS has a proven history of closed standards based on embracing and extending open standards for the sole purpose of creating an artificial dependence on their products. Based on this fact alone, products build on open standards are superior...
Who said anything about reviewing ALL their source code? But I may well review some of their sourcecode and certainly anything they have developed since that should not only be open source, it should be public domain.
They are accountable to ME the taxpayer, the people who hired them, the people who ultimately CAN and will if need be fire them. If I want to have the source code available for everything they use as part of that accountablity. So I can be sure the information regarding me they handle is secure, so I can verify they are telling the truth if they claim all the power grids in the state went down due a glitch. So I can verify pretty much anything I want AT NEED not neccesarily as an automatic process. They damn well better do it.
Not every individual person will read every line of source code, that is nearly an impossible task with comprehension. However if every citizen reads just two lines of code they could review 1000's of times the amount of software used by the state. But the reason the state needs the source open is so that the citizens can check up on them. And to ensure they don't spend my money developing for proprietary software when they could have developed code that would benefit anyone without advertising a private company.
I'm glad they've backed down from their earlier "FLOSS everywhere" policy because it was simply impractical while also being completely unfair to NFCSS (non-free closed source software) companies. I think our local government (Australian Capital Territory) had a far more intelligent policy; you should consider open source software but still pick the best (read: most economical) tool for the job. It seems Massachusetts has now chosen a similarly balanced policy and that makes me happy.
Another motivation is practicality. I know of and sometimes work in certain areas where moving to FLOSS would be a significant step backwards. I am not talking about office automation, but areas like scientific software and certain limit cases (eg, terabyte databases). These are niches where the NFCSS companies have had several decades head start. It will take a very long time for FLOSS to catchup to NFCSS in those niche fields, if that's even possible.
BTW: my real motivation for supporting "choice" over "mandate" is partly fairness, partly common sense, but also partly smugness. I have no doubt that FLOSS software will win on its own merits, given enough time. I definitely don't want FLOSS to be govt-mandated now and 10 years later have a bunch of disgruntled ex-Microsofties bitch about how "FLOSS would never have won if the govt didn't make it compulsory".