Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Malaysian Open Source Procurement Policy Amended

Posted by Zonk on from the penguin-has-lost-his-way dept.

Ditesh writes "The Malaysian Open Source Masterplan, which favoured open source over proprietary public sector procurements when all other evaluations are equal, has been reversed to a purely 'neutral technology platform' policy due to 'negative reaction towards open source (from the IT market)'. This comes after months of hard lobbying by Microsoft Malaysia. This reversal is certainly unfortunate, as the policy has helped raise comfort levels of other policy makers worldwide in pursuing similar goals. The Malaysian Open Source Alliance has published a position statement asking for clarification of the term 'neutrality', and has received support from MNC's, local companies and free software developers in Malaysia."

3 of 18 comments (clear)

  1. Bad thing... by El+Lobo · · Score: 1, Insightful
    It's a bad thing... the day when a goverment (or any company or person for that matters) prefers a software piece over another just becuase it's Open Source or Commercial. The criteria to select a software must be: quality, usefullness (is that a word?) and , why not price, but NEVER political and isiological (idiotogical) reasons.

    What to use Linuz? Or Windows? Use them, but please let the politics out. Think for your self. And think logically. And technically.

    --
    It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
    1. Re:Bad thing... by ajs318 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bollocks.

      The moment merely obeying the Law of the Land requires a piece of proprietary technology -- any kind of proprietary technology, be it closed-source software or a patented widget -- then the Law has been privatised via the back door.

      You surely don't need telling how and why that's a bad thing.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
  2. Never ignore the license by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Obviously the license needs to be considered when making purchases. Who has the right to use the software? At home or at work? For what purposes? And are we at the mercy of a single vendor for service and upgrades?

    There is nothing "ideological" about preferring a license that gives your organization the freedom to optimize the deployment and maintenance of the software for both current and (unforeseeable) future needs, over a license that put limitations on use and/or the future evolution of the product.

    It is simply due diligence on the part of the decision makers.