Becoming an Open Source Lobbyist?

Random Guru 42 asks: "With the recent MFP scandal in Toronto, with we taxpayers having to take the brunt of the cost of licensing and leasing software the city doesn't need, I'm wondering what it would take to lobby the city to start switching over to open source software. Has anyone ever tried to lobby your local council to make the jump away from expensive, closed software?"

Comments

Don't promote Open Source.

[Mmm coffee]

...Promote Free Software instead.

Open Source is a development model, a way to create a work, usually software. While it does have many pluses compared to other development models, how a program is made generally has little impact on someones decision when they're choosing a program to use. On the other hand, Free Software is based on the Freedoms that a program has, and thus is much more business/government friendly.

Yes, you heard me. The Freedom that Free Software gives you is often the most compelling reason for anyone to switch, you just need to realize that different people value different freedoms. In this case, when talking to a government you need to remind them what freedoms they are giving up by using proprietary software. Here's a brief list of points to get your started.

• Any workstation will most likely be using Microsoft Windows XP. If you actually read their license agreement it is very easy to find clauses that would make any government worker with half a brain stem wet themselves. In sections 2.1, 2.4, and 6 you give them permission to snoop on your machine. The text is so broad that you pretty much give them permission to do whatever they want. Section 5 is so ambiguous that technically any file sharing voids the agreement. This is bad news if you allow other people to download/copy documents off your machine in a business setting. When you combine sections 7 and 8 you may be giving them permission to disable your ability to do any networking, including getting on the internet. Note that the final sentence of S8 says "any internet-based service", they didn't say "Any service provided by Microsoft via the internet".
  
  My personal favorite of XP's EULA - Section 9 concerns upgrading and says "After upgrading, you may no longer use the software that formed the basis for your upgrade." This means that if you have a CD of XP SP1 and upgrade to SP2, then according to this agreement you have to buy a totally new copy of Windows to reinstall should your system get hosed.
  
  EULAs are intentionally vague, and chain the user with restrictions so draconian that it's nearly impossible to use the software normally without voiding the EULA. Do some research, it is very easy to come up with a very long list of legal traps that would persuade a user away from proprietary software.
  
  And then you can mention that Free Software does not come with such restrictions. Indeed, one of the basic points of the Free Software definition is that the software should be free to use in any way the user sees fit, without restrictions. A little research into this and you can have one hell of an argument.
• Proprietary document formats discriminate against the users, which is a very stupid thing for a government to do. In specific, Microsoft Word files are at best a nuisance. Users of a non-Microsoft OS may have troubles viewing them. Buying the hardware and software necessary to view them can be very costly, and discriminates against the poor. They can be troublesome for people with poor vision. By sending word files to distribute information you strengthen the "everybody uses it" mentality, and thus strengthen Microsoft's monopoly. And so on. Combine this with my first point, and you can have a very convincing argument for Open Office. If you're not making word files, then why buy a $600+ text editor?
• Freedom to modify - Why have a browser on a machine when you don't need it? Why have a bunch of services running that only create vulnerabilities since you don't use them? Why should they settle for an unchangable program designed for everybody, when you can use flexible programs designed for your needs? Using a slimmed down system reduces the risks of bugs, crashes, and security vulnerabilities, making the system less costly in terms of time and money.
• ...And so on, this is but the tip of the iceberg. I'd suggest listening to some

OpenOffice is dead easy to learn

[leonbrooks]

One PHB I worked for wrote a complaint about how bad OpenOffice was, and how bad Linux was. He calls the OS on his home machine (XP Home) "Word".

The punch-line? Said PHB wrote out the complaint using OpenOffice (1.1.2) on a Linux box (Mandrake 10.0 using KDE 3.2) without realising it. One of his receptionists used the same system for three days before she suddenly frowned at the screen and said, "Hey... this isn't Microsoft Word, is it?" Cue the quiet gristly sounds of Leon biting his tongue.

So... beware of people telling you OpenOffice has a steep learning curve. If your office is dumb enough to base its digital life around a big sheaf of Excel and/or Word macros, then yes, they will have major issues with that. They will have major issues with anything. Everyone else - the gazillions of people who wouldn't know what a macro was even if it leaped out of the screen and bit them on the nose - will get along just fine.

My brother works at Toronto city hall

[mindaktiviti]

My brother works at Toronto city hall and he was complaining to me earlier about how his own computer (at work) barely works.

I asked him why he couldn't install Firefox, or OO.o, and it was all about IT. So then I asked him to tell IT to do it, but he said that he would have to get permission from this person, and that person, so it's very difficult to change anything there. I'm assuming it's very similar in many other organizations out there and I won't put the blame on the IT people, however they should definitely try their best to implement much needed apps like Firefox, PGP (for email), spyware tools etc.