To try and answer your question, while ignoring your trollish suggestion that the NZ Greens support violence...
a quick search of the Greens website reveals that they support OSS because...
"Open Source software embodies the Green principles of independence and of finding new ways to get around old problems."
"It is cheaper, safer, more democratic and is not beholden to corporate software monopolies."
"is in our best interests to move towards OS software, for financial, ethical and practical reasons."
etc etc
perhaps we should turn it around, perhaps you can argue why the Greens should not be allowed to have a position on OSS. Do you often go around telling people that they should not be allowed to have a opinion on OSS?
The submitted story doesn't make sense. I can't find any mention of the Greens being upset about the govt Novell contract in that article. In fact the original Green Party press release praises the govt decision.
Govt software deal great news for Open Source cause in NZ
http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/PR9324.html
I think a more accurate story would have been...
New Zealand weekly magazine 'National Business Review' has attacked the NZ Greens for supporting open source. In a long article they reproduce many lies and misconceptions about OSS - is there a media kit that M$ supply that makes it easier for such journalists to write this crap? The Greens may not completely get OSS, but the NBR don't either. Have a read of this pathetic article and wonder why the journalist has his face up M$ arse.
Slashdot Mirror
I see that that wikipedia story has been "cleaned up" because it was "patently false" and that Slashdot offer "apologies to Wikimedia".
Is there any way that the same thing can happen with this story?
To try and answer your question, while ignoring your trollish suggestion that the NZ Greens support violence...
a quick search of the Greens website reveals that they support OSS because...
"Open Source software embodies the Green principles of independence and of finding new ways to get around old problems."
"It is cheaper, safer, more democratic and is not beholden to corporate software monopolies."
"is in our best interests to move towards OS software, for financial, ethical and practical reasons."
etc etc
perhaps we should turn it around, perhaps you can argue why the Greens should not be allowed to have a position on OSS. Do you often go around telling people that they should not be allowed to have a opinion on OSS?
The submitted story doesn't make sense. I can't find any mention of the Greens being upset about the govt Novell contract in that article. In fact the original Green Party press release praises the govt decision. Govt software deal great news for Open Source cause in NZ http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/PR9324.html I think a more accurate story would have been... New Zealand weekly magazine 'National Business Review' has attacked the NZ Greens for supporting open source. In a long article they reproduce many lies and misconceptions about OSS - is there a media kit that M$ supply that makes it easier for such journalists to write this crap? The Greens may not completely get OSS, but the NBR don't either. Have a read of this pathetic article and wonder why the journalist has his face up M$ arse.