Free Software Wins Court Battle in Quebec

courteaudotbiz writes "In a court battle in the province of Quebec, Canada, initiated more than two years ago, free software activists Savoir Faire Linux (translated 'Linux know-how') won the right to submit offers (Google translation; original French version) when the government takes public requests for submissions to replace its desktop operating systems and office suites. This opens the possibility in the future of replacing Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office in favor of Linux and OpenOffice.org, or any other operating system and office productivity suite. In his judgment, the magistrate said that the government acted illegally when it discarded the proposal of Savoir Faire Linux for replacing Windows XP with a Linux distribution."

Comments

"Won the right to submit offers"

[Errol backfiring]

Seriously, doesn't this yell corruption into everybody's ears? What right is held back next?

Re:"Won the right to submit offers"

[tomhudson]

This judgment was about the procurement process in this context, but it has far-reaching implications. It means that the government has to follow the rules that they laid down for public tenders, and not (1) try to subvert the process, and (2) lie about it afterwords. If you read one of the other articles on the french web page, you'll see that it's the Parti Quebecois that is trying to get the government to be more user-friendly with our data and our tax dollars, while Jean Charest' Liberals don't want to know shit

Then again, Jean Charest is such a lying fuck it's incredible. I remember talking to reporters and saying "people actually believe this guy?" and the response back was uniform "he says one thing to one group, another thing to another, but our editors just want to report what he's saying, not that he's lying half the time". We saw it with the whole demerger thing. Make a promise to do the right thing, then lie lie lie while you fuck everyone over.

Then again, what do you want from a former Mulroney Conservative. There are so many anglos in Montreal who vote PQ now in provincial elections because there's no way that they can trust him again.

Re:Rediculous.

[Etyenne]

If the government of Quebec wants to upgrade their AutoCad 2000 license to AutoCad 2010 licenses, do they have to accept bids from people who want to sell them the free software program "Bricscad" running under Wine?

Close, but no cookie. It means the government has to describe the need they need to fill, instead of dictating a specific product, in their RFP. Any bidder that can meet these needs can submit a proposal. It's common sense, really.

Re:Bravo to FACIL, Cyrille and his team!

[tomhudson]

It's always like that , and that's one reason why this decision is important - it means, at least in Quebec, that there's no more of this "it's just an upgrade" BS.

From what I read in the original french, the judge wasn't buying any of the gov't arguments. To paraphrase, if buying new computers with Vista on them is just an "upgrade", then everything becomes "just an upgrade" and there's no reason for ever calling for public tenders. (Those new police cars are "just an upgrade - no need for tenders").

The problem is that Windows boxes are a continuing cash cow because of their higher on-going support needs, so of course people are going to push Windows. They aren't tech-savvy, they just know how to push the boxes, maintain the anti-virus subscriptions, which icons to click to set up the network, and how to reformat.

Re:That is needed in the USA

[wrook]

I disagree - there is the probability that there already exists an infrastructure built around Windows desktops, including systems management and applications. In such a case, does it really make sense to consider bids for an alternative desktop OS, which would require extra unbudgeted expenditure in order to integrate into the existing infrastructure (or replace the existing infrastructure altogether, with all the costs associated with that)?

The answer is YES! The government is required to consider all competing bids. It's not just a good idea, it's the law and for good reason. It helps stop corruption when doling out taxpayer's money. IF it can be shown that a competing bid is more expensive for the same value, then of course they are quite able to reject the bid. However, disallowing competing bids is extremely bad because you don't know what the cost will be, or what the issues are -- because nobody has made a bid! Given that the capital cost for the average Linux distribution is zero, there should be plenty of money left over for other expenditures required to integrate into the existing infrastructure. In fact, from a reputable integrator, this (along with training and support of course) should be the vast majority of the cost.