Slashdot Mirror
New Hampshire Passes 'Open Source Bill'
Plugh writes "In a victory for transparency and openness in government, and saving tax dollars, New Hampshire has passed HB418. State agencies are now required by law to consider open source software when acquiring software, and to promote the use of open data formats."
It's interesting to see how a government defines what "open source" means. Some of the wording might actually restrict certain packages, for example:
As a professional open source developer myself, I have to admit that documentation isn't often a strong point of open source, and internal file formats are no exception.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
How about we just get rid of government and let everyone decide what to do with their own goddamn money.
Because most of us like having things like sewage systems, streets, and someone to get the drunk drivers off the roads. Of course, with no roads, I guess the drunk drivers wouldn't be a problem.
And if you think people would band together to pay for basic infrastructure without any government-style coordination, you're out of your mind.
Open source is great. I use it for all kinds of things, but I don't have much faith that government can make it work to anyone's benefit.
Why not? They make proprietary software work for people's benefit. What's so different about open source software?
Let people keep their earnings and decide what solutions are best for themselves.
Most people would be more concerned about basic security than software solutions if you were to remove the government.
Otherwise, you might as well just have them at least support real business that actually employs someone.
Government is real business. Seriously. They provide services for their customers in exchange for money. Sure, the people who receive services and the people who pay aren't necessarily the same people (i.e. I pay road tax, but my street hasn't been repaved since it was built in the 1930s, since apparently no one knows how to rebrick a #*$%ing street anymore), but the concept is the same. You even get to vote for the officers, which is more than an shareholder does.
The government employs people, just like a business. It pays those people in real, actual money - which is more than many business do, what with stock options and whatnot. Government can't run without government employees. Those employees are regular people, just like you and me. I've met quite a few very competent sysadmins who were GS rated government employees.
Get rid of the government, and you'll find yourself needing to solve a lot of problems. Every solution to those problems will evolve into government. It's the way of the world. Don't like it? Build a shack in the middle of Idaho and live off the land.
Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
"Didn't meet our requirements."
With that statement, any choice can be made. It is impossible to legislate what people "should" do, particularly when dealing with large bureaucracies.
While true, this requires the minions to say so in writing, with their names attached. Which provides the demi-minions above them with grounds for low performance ratings, and so on up to the top of the heap. Where a challenger for some elected position could accuse the incumbent of failing to control costs, etc, using all these brief reports as concrete ammunition.
I have been employed by an agency of the Federal government, never for any State governments, but I believe when it comes to the hired staff they all work the same way. If you make the civil servants have to state their reasons for decisions in any kind of written report, suddenly those decisions become a lot more rational. They don't know who their boss will be after the next election, and if they want to advance, they've got to be good at covering their asses.
Looks to me like NH has found a way to make the CYA attitudes of its Sybil serpents work for the benefit of the populace. Way to go, Granite State!
Will