OSDN | Our Network | Newsletters | Advertise | Shop     X 
Welcome to Slashdot Linux Technology Programming Science Microsoft
 faq
 code
 awards
 journals
 subscribe
 older stuff
 rob's page
 preferences
 submit story
 advertising
 supporters
 past polls
 topics
 about
 bugs
 jobs
 hof

Sections
apache
Aug 22
(1 recent)

apple
Aug 23
(9 recent)

articles
Aug 23
(32 recent)

askslashdot
Aug 23
(10 recent)

books
Aug 23
(3 recent)

bsd
Aug 16

developers
Aug 23
(9 recent)

features
Jul 18

interviews
Aug 22
(1 recent)

radio
Jun 29

science
Aug 23
(7 recent)

yro
Aug 23
(5 recent)

Tim O'Reilly Bashes Open Source Efforts in Govt
NewsPosted by michael on Friday August 16, @01:10PM
from the time-to-get-out-the-lart dept.
mshiltonj writes "Tim O'Reilly wrote a little piece about his worries about the politicization of the Open Source community, specifically the Digital Software Security Act. He calls it a bad idea, saying, 'No one should be forced to choose open source, any more than they should be forced to choose proprietary software.'"

There's a tremendous difference between what government should be allowed to do and what individuals should be allowed to do. O'Reilly is attempting to blur the distinction, a common rhetorical tactic but one which does not advance his argument. As far as I can tell, his only argument besides this is that if the citizenry pushes for the government to use Free software, companies will push back to use proprietary crud. This argument doesn't hold water - every company selling proprietary software is lobbying the government all the time, have been for years, and they aren't going to stop just because we do. CNet carries news today that Microsoft has pressured the NSA to drop development of Security-Enhanced Linux. I can only imagine what sort of pressures might have been brought to bear behind the scenes, perhaps Microsoft threatened to cancel the NSA's site licenses of Windows and Microsoft Office. But in any case, there's no such thing as "mutual disarmament" - if we back down we'll just get smashed by the continuing efforts of companies pushing proprietary software.

But back to the government/individual distinction. Individuals, for instance, shouldn't be required to disclose their private papers to anyone who asks. But government should: that's the foundation of our freedom of information laws, and they exist for a good reason - keeping an eye on government is a necessary thing. Saying "People should be free to keep their papers private" as an argument against government FOI laws is just a stupid strawman, unworthy of further debate. And that's what O'Reilly's argument against California's proposed law is as well.

Governments play by different rules. They need to be fiscally responsible, transparent to the public, and promote the public commonwealth whenever possible. Using Open Source or Free Software in government promotes all three of these goals, and if Microsoft or any other corporation doesn't make quite as much money when the government alters its standards for software procurement... so what? Companies who make shoddy products do lose business when the government ups its standards, and they have the same choice as any business does: either produce better products, or lose the government's business. In this case the shoddiness comes in some of the most important areas as far as software goes: open access to the code, to ensure the software that we the citizenry pay for is doing what it is supposed to be doing, but the rationale would be the same if the government mandated a certain level of bug-free-ness or a certain level of performance for software - you can shape up and continue selling to the government or you can ship out. Your choice.

O'Reilly seems to be promoting the agenda of Microsoft's Software Choice campaign. He's a business man; perhaps there's a reason we don't know about. But whatever his motives, his lame arguments are no reason to stop pushing for governments to use Free or Open Source software wherever possible.

 

 
Slashdot Login
Nickname:

Password:

[ Create a new account ]

Related Links
· Microsoft has pressured the NSA to drop development of Security-Enhanced Linux
· Microsoft's Software Choice campaign
· mshiltonj
· little piece
· Digital Software Security Act
· More on News
· Also by michael

<  Paul Graham on Fighting Spam | Crypto Leash for Laptops?  >
Tim O'Reilly Bashes Open Source Efforts in Govt | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 673 comments | Search Discussion
Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) | 2 | 3 (Slashdot Overload: CommentLimit 50)
What bunk (Score:5, Insightful)
by Telastyn on Friday August 16, @01:14PM (#4083526)
(User #206146 Info)
Come on, O'Rielly has no interest in pushing anything Microsoft. He's just saying that the government should use the best tools for the job, and not belabor it's choices with (more) bureaucracy.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • Re:What bunk by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Friday August 16, @01:19PM
    • Re:What bunk by DEBEDb (Score:1) Friday August 16, @02:32PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:What bunk (Score:4, Insightful)
    by crimoid on Friday August 16, @01:26PM (#4083635)
    (User #27373 Info | Last Journal: Monday March 18, @12:14PM)
    I couldn't agree more. Restricting the government to use only open-source software is simply insane.

    While I agree that the government needs a certain level of transparency, I don't think that this transparency should filter down to every level of their orgainization. Does the public have a RIGHT to know the government's network infrastructure? Does the public have a RIGHT to know what data is on every civil servant's hard drive? I think not.

    Requiring complete transparency is not only highly impractical (think of the cost to the taxpayer)), but it is also unnecessary. Within the bounds of law the government should be able to do what they need to do to get their job done. If that means using Windows or Office or some other proprietary software so be it.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • Re:What bunk by Telastyn (Score:2) Friday August 16, @01:31PM
      • Re:What bunk by crimoid (Score:2) Friday August 16, @01:47PM
        • Re:What bunk by Telastyn (Score:1) Friday August 16, @01:59PM
        • Re:What bunk by Ironica (Score:1) Friday August 16, @05:59PM
        • Re:What bunk by Saeger (Score:1) Friday August 16, @08:27PM
        • Re:What bunk by ebyrob (Score:2) Friday August 16, @02:51PM
          • Re:What bunk by Chris Burke (Score:2) Friday August 16, @03:19PM
            • Re:What bunk by ebyrob (Score:2) Friday August 16, @06:19PM
            • Re:What bunk by mkldev (Score:1) Friday August 16, @06:26PM
          • Re:What bunk by Ironica (Score:2) Friday August 16, @06:01PM
            • Re:What bunk by ebyrob (Score:2) Monday August 19, @04:59PM
        • Re:What bunk by thetman (Score:1) Friday August 16, @03:23PM
        • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
      • Transparency *is* needed (Score:5, Insightful)
      by Deskpoet on Friday August 16, @01:55PM (#4083955)
      (User #215561 Info | http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Wednesday July 31, @02:44AM)
      Does the public have a RIGHT to know the government's network infrastructure? Does the public have a RIGHT to know what data is on every civil servant's hard drive?

      I realize this is a rhetorical question, but, using the justification of those monitoring *my* communications at work, I would say the answer is a most definite yes, particularly to the first question.

      The arguments of "state secrecy" are only defensible if a) we don't care what our government does or b) we don't want to know what our government does. As I spend the first five months of every year supporting an organization that allegedly functions in my interest, I feel I have every right to know--at every depth, well beyond FOIA--what that organization is doing.

      Now, you talk about the cost to the taxpayer, but when you're spending billions on things that blow up (where's the ROI in *that*?), that argument is shaky at best. I think the infrastructure could be refitted at the expense of a few less missles, while eliminating the secondary (Microsoft/Oracle/IBM) tax of proprietary software.

      O'reilly called Peru "great theatre", which makes you wonder just how commited to openness he is--they expect accountability out of their government down there. By taking this stand, he seems to imply that doin' bidness should take precedence over the REAL openness of a people demanding that their government not take corporate payoffs in software contracts, etc.

      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      • Re:Transparency *is* needed by ebyrob (Score:3) Friday August 16, @02:39PM
      • Re:Transparency *is* needed by crimoid (Score:2) Friday August 16, @03:14PM
        • Re:Transparency *is* needed (Score:4, Informative)
        by ericman31 on Friday August 16, @03:34PM (#4084877)
        (User #596268 Info | Last Journal: Thursday August 01, @10:32AM)

        Now, you talk about the cost to the taxpayer, but when you're spending billions on things that blow up (where's the ROI in *that*?), that argument is shaky at best. I think the infrastructure could be refitted at the expense of a few less missles, while eliminating the secondary (Microsoft/Oracle/IBM) tax of proprietary software.

        Since we are talking about the proposed law in California I think we can discard the idea that building a few less missiles will fund the refitting you're talking about. Even IF we were talking about the Federal government "a few less missiles" would not fund what you are talking about.

        In any case, there are significant issues on the table with mandating open source software for the State of California. Before I go any further I should lay my cards on the table. I work for an IT services company. However, I'm expressing my own views, not the position of my employer. I currently work in one of the government divisions of that company, and for the last four years have supported multiple contracts with the state of California. I have a serious stake in this law, both because of my job and because I'm a citizen of California. Some of what I have to say deals with my political views as a citizen and some with my views as an IT professional.

        I'm a huge supporter of open source. I think it's clear that the Internet, as we know it, was created by open source platforms, including Berkley UNIX (and subsequently BSD and Linux), BIND, and Apache. The open source community has been, and still is, a leader in many of the innovations in computing today. This same community responds much faster to customer needs, bugs and security holes than commercial vendors do. I wish I could get my commercial vendors to be as responsive.

        That said, there are two major flaws with the idea of mandating open source only software in government IT. The first is that there are some things that open source simply cannot do. Perhaps in the future that will no longer be true, but it is not the case today. Some systems run by the state of California today could not run on Linux and MySQL due to their sheer size and complexity. In fact, at least one is still running on IBM mainframes because the risk involved in migrating to midrange platforms like IBM pSeries or Sun's SunFire is simply too high. While Linux can run on the mainframe, it cannot support the scope of this particular system, it is still Linux, running other open source platforms. There is some promising work being done in grid computing and super computing based on Linux that leads me to believe that this problem will be overcome in the next few years.

        Politically, the correct approach to the issue of "transparency" for our government is three-fold:

        1. Open standards rather than proprietary standards. For example, TCP/IP for network connectivity instead of SNA.
        2. Open records for procurement, contracting and IT standards.
        3. No proprietary data formats
        In combination with the already existing freedom of information laws, this would ensure that, whether the IT platform is proprietary or open source it can interoperate with any other system using open standards. It would ensure that citizens have a full and informative view of the government's procurement process, allowing oversight to hopefully prevent something like the Oracle Master Licensing Agreement that California entered into last year. And finally it would ensure that government information is available to anyone with a web browser.

        Mandating open source only is doomed to failure, at least at the stage of development of open source platforms that currently exist. There are many instances in state government where open source software could benefit the government and the taxpayer. On the desktop of office workers, as web servers, as office automation file and print servers, even replacing many of the proprietary systems in place today. And a mandate to include open source in procurement processes would help to make those changes. But a mandate to use

        Read the rest of this comment...

        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      • Re:Transparency *is* needed by Dirtside (Score:2) Friday August 16, @03:59PM
      • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:What bunk by ratamacue (Score:1) Friday August 16, @01:55PM
      • Re:What bunk by thetman (Score:1) Friday August 16, @03:26PM
        • Re:What bunk by DunbarTheInept (Score:2) Friday August 16, @06:43PM
      • Specifications, people. (Score:4, Insightful)
      by Chris Burke on Friday August 16, @02:23PM (#4084259)
      (User #6130 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
      Why is this all being viewed as the government making only one choice, or "restricting" themselves? The government -- and everyone else -- does this all the time. It's called a requirement. When Boeing and Lockheed competed for the Stealth Bomber contract, did they complain that the government was restricting themselves to only use planes with low radar profiles? No, it was a requirement for the contract.

      "Getting the job done" can mean more than processing a document. If you also require that you have open standards, the ability to check code for backdoors and security issue, and that your choice of software now doesn't lock you in to a particular vendor in the future -- are these not merely requirements which, like all other requirements you might have, result in some software not being eligible due to failing to meet these requirements? Restricting yourself to only those things which fullfill your needs is not insane, it is superlatively rational.

      What you think using open source software has to do with making available the contents of a civil servant's hard drive I can't fathom, which is why I didn't really address that part.
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • Re:What bunk by Czernobog (Score:2) Friday August 16, @02:37PM
    • Re:What bunk by Gameboy70 (Score:3) Friday August 16, @02:51PM
    • Even More Bunk... by Badanov (Score:1) Friday August 16, @02:54PM
    • Re:What bunk by msimm (Score:1) Friday August 16, @03:01PM
    • Re:What bunk by anonymous_wombat (Score:2) Friday August 16, @03:17PM
    • Re:What bunk by Dark Fire (Score:1) Friday August 16, @03:30PM
    • Re:What bunk by Kz (Score:1) Friday August 16, @04:02PM
      • Re:What bunk by DunbarTheInept (Score:2) Friday August 16, @06:48PM
    • Re:What bunk by blakestah (Score:2) Friday August 16, @07:06PM
    • 3 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:What bunk by DLR (Score:1) Friday August 16, @01:28PM
    • Re:What bunk by ceejayoz (Score:2) Friday August 16, @01:30PM
      • Re:What bunk by DLR (Score:1) Friday August 16, @01:38PM
        • Re:What bunk by Bat_Masterson (Score:1) Friday August 16, @02:00PM
          • Re:What bunk by Qybix (Score:1) Friday August 16, @03:10PM
            • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
          • Re:What bunk by DLR (Score:1) Friday August 16, @07:02PM
    • Re:What bunk by goldspider (Score:2) Friday August 16, @01:52PM
      • Re:What bunk by DLR (Score:1) Friday August 16, @01:59PM
        • Re:What bunk by Bat_Masterson (Score:1) Friday August 16, @02:05PM
          • Re:What bunk by sealawyer (Score:1) Friday August 16, @02:56PM
        • Re:What bunk by nelsonal (Score:2) Friday August 16, @02:24PM
      • Re:What bunk by Ironica (Score:1) Friday August 16, @06:34PM
  • Re:What bunk by SpamJunkie (Score:1) Friday August 16, @01:30PM
    • Re:What bunk by DLR (Score:1) Friday August 16, @01:44PM
      • Re:What bunk by Bat_Masterson (Score:1) Friday August 16, @02:11PM
      • Re:What bunk by Dalcius (Score:1) Friday August 16, @02:21PM
      • Re:What bunk (Score:4, Insightful)
      by Rasputin on Friday August 16, @01:53PM (#4083935)
      (User #5106 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
      And forcing the government to use open source is a decidedly communist idea.

      Well, first of all you're red baiting. How does communism even come into this? The Federal government is not a free enterprise operation, it is a *government*.

      Secondly, there are definite benefits to the tax payers if the government restricts it's self to open source software. Should governments spend tax dollars to buy closed, proprietary applications that lock the people's data into tightly protected formats? They might as well just hand the keys for their offices over to Microsoft.

      Lastly, where is this competition you were talking about? Microsoft owns the software industry. If they want a market they take it. There isn't any competition, just business Microsoft hasn't undermined and destroyed yet.

      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • Re:What bunk by DLR (Score:1) Friday August 16, @01:54PM
      • Re:What bunk by Bat_Masterson (Score:1) Friday August 16, @02:13PM
        • Re:What bunk by Dalcius (Score:1) Friday August 16, @02:45PM
        • Re:What bunk by jedidiah (Score:2) Friday August 16, @06:31PM
    • Sorry.. by SoSueMe (Score:1) Friday August 16, @01:48PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:What bunk by warpSpeed (Score:2) Friday August 16, @01:32PM
      Re:What bunk (Score:5, Insightful)
      by Spamuel on Friday August 16, @02:08PM (#4084092)
      (User #246002 Info)
      Oh, well while you're asking questions let me ask one. Who signs Michael's pay cheque? Think about that for a second before you start throwing mud.
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      • Paycheck?! by Lysol (Score:1) Friday August 16, @04:11PM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:What bunk by packetgeek (Score:1) Friday August 16, @02:11PM
      • Re:What bunk by ericman31 (Score:2) Friday August 16, @03:50PM
        • Re:What bunk by packetgeek (Score:1) Friday August 16, @10:54PM
      • Re:What bunk by jedidiah (Score:2) Friday August 16, @06:35PM
        • Re:What bunk by packetgeek (Score:1) Friday August 16, @11:02PM
          • Re:What bunk by ericman31 (Score:2) Saturday August 17, @12:22AM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:What bunk by Ironica (Score:1) Friday August 16, @06:08PM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:What bunk by smd4985 (Score:1) Friday August 16, @01:33PM
    • Re:What bunk by Bat_Masterson (Score:1) Friday August 16, @02:17PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:What bunk by Rulle (Score:2) Friday August 16, @01:40PM
    • Re:What bunk by Bat_Masterson (Score:1) Friday August 16, @02:21PM
    • Re:What bunk by telbij (Score:2) Friday August 16, @05:41PM
      • Re:What bunk by Ironica (Score:1) Friday August 16, @06:13PM
        • Re:What bunk by Anonymous Brave Guy (Score:2) Friday August 16, @08:04PM
  • Re:What bunk by Archfeld (Score:2) Friday August 16, @01:44PM
    • Re:What bunk (Score:5, Insightful)
    by jayhawk88 (rockchalk88@yahoo.com) on Friday August 16, @01:46PM (#4083861)
    (User #160512 Info | http://www.joystick101.org/)
    Someone said it best the other day in a similar article: We should be more concerned about pushing the government to use open standards, rather than open source software. Who cares if the government wants to run XP rather than RedHat on all their workstations? What's important is that I, the citizen, can still have reasonable and easy access to government information and services should I decide that Bill Gates is the devil.

    In other words, stay away from the .DOC files and ASP pages that break Mozilla.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:What bunk (Score:4, Insightful)
    by Wesley Everest on Friday August 16, @01:50PM (#4083905)
    (User #446824 Info)
    When evaluating the best tool for the job, you also have to evaluate the license. If it's a good tool but a bad license, then you choose a different tool. This is not a new idea.

    Imagine if the military was buying a few thousand jeeps. They had two choices. Company A had the superior technology, but Company B's jeep was satisfactory. Company A required them to sign a license that said they were not allowed to open the hood of the jeep because everything under the hood was a trade secret. Meanwhile, Company B provided them with a full manual and even CAD data for every part of the jeep. Which jeep should the military buy?

    Clearly, the best tool for the job would be the one built by Company B -- precisely because of the license and openness.

    Should Congress pass a law requiring all federal government to use GPL software? No. Should the federal government be required to take into account hidden expenses down the road due to license issues? Yes. Should the federal government take into account security and access to public information that is held in trust for the American people? Yes.

    I imagine this sort of thing is already going on in agencies where security is a big concern -- I doubt the CIA uses much closed-source software bought off-the-shelf, without getting some sort of special source license.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:What bunk (Score:4, Insightful)
      by Wesley Everest on Friday August 16, @02:59PM (#4084531)
      (User #446824 Info)
      A license is not a "philosophy". It's not like we're talking about using software developed by Buddhists vs. Unitarians. A license is part of the product. With software nowadays, the license is the product. If you are a buying a software license, you should buy the best one for the job. That means you should take into account price, bugginess, security, speed, features, etc. It also means that you should look into how much it will cost to train employees to use it, how much it would cost to retrain employees if the software becomes unavailable in the future, the chance of the software becoming unavailable in the future, etc. If the license means that you are locked into the software, with a high expense to switch later, then you need to look into the expected future price of the software, the expected future suitability and viability of the software, etc.

      Btw, it isn't necessary for governemnt to use open-source software to have a good license. The government just needs to outline what they want in a license, and then shop around for the best software that meets their needs. If Microsoft shrinkwrap software doesn't meet their licensing needs, then there is nothing preventing Microsoft from making a special license for selling software to government agencies. If the post office is needs to buy 10,000 white trucks, a truck manufacturer that specializes in blue trucks could easily make a special run of white trucks to satisfy a such a large customer.

      The question isn't whether government agencies should take the license into account when acquiring software. The question is what should they be looking for in a license, and specifically, what are the minimum requirements in a license? And further, for a single government entity, what are the core minimum requirements that should be mandated to all subordinate bodies?

      Some might say that there is no core minimum, but if you think about it, that's clearly not true. There are countless things that could be in a license that would be unacceptable to any government agency, but would be legal and acceptable to some consumers. For example, imagine a deal where you get a computer for free but the license says that the company providing the computer is free to scan any files on your computer and can sell or otherwise use any information they find.

      If someone were to suggest a law mandating that all government agencies buy software without reading the license, that would be ridiculous. That would be opening us up to all sorts of problems with hidden costs and violations of the public trust.

      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      • Re:What bunk by Ironica (Score:1) Friday August 16, @06:28PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • STANDARDS by anonymous cupboard (Score:2) Friday August 16, @02:07PM
  • Re:What bunk by CrazySailor (Score:1) Friday August 16, @02:19PM
  • Re:What bunk by karji (Score:1) Friday August 16, @03:00PM
  • Re:What bunk by Damek (Score:2) Friday August 16, @03:30PM
  • Re:What bunk by passthecrackpipe (Score:1) Friday August 16, @05:02PM
  • Re:What bunk by welshsocialist (Score:1) Saturday August 17, @01:36AM
  • Re:What bunk by Felinoid (Score:1) Monday August 19, @02:54PM
  • 3 replies beneath your current threshold.
Michael's finally gone over the cliff (Score:5, Insightful)
by elefantstn on Friday August 16, @01:17PM (#4083549)
(User #195873 Info | http://joshuadmiller.com/)
O'Reilly seems to be promoting the agenda of Microsoft's Software Choice campaign. He's a business man; perhaps there's a reason we don't know about. But whatever his motives, his lame arguments are no reason to stop pushing for governments to use Free or Open Source software wherever possible.


Seriously, Michael, this is really childish. Tim O'Reilly has done fantastic work for the community, including even publishing some of his company's books for free on the internet, and all you can think to do is make sly accusations about his "motives."

Grow up, Michael. People can disagree with each other without having to resort to implicit "He's bought off!" accusations. It happens all the time in the real world.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Hey Michael (Score:2, Insightful)
by Skyshadow on Friday August 16, @01:17PM (#4083552)
(User #508 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
Is there some reason why you can't just post the article and then, if you have some comments about it, follow up with a post like the rest of us peons?

I mean, that would allow us to post replies and maybe discuss your position. Instead, we're sort of left with you commenting from on high. Then again, I notice that the /. editors almost never post unless it's to clear up something about /. itself (is that some sort of policy?).

Still, I think you should come join the rest of us if you want to editorialize.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
My opinion (Score:2)
by einhverfr (einhverfr@hoHORSE ... m minus herbivore) on Friday August 16, @01:17PM (#4083554)
(User #238914 Info | http://hermesweb.sourceforge.net/)
I don't think that all of these laws are created equal. The ideas that governments should be required to have access to the source code makes concrete economic sense if you are in Peru but the case for California is a little less convincing. Governments need to run efficiently and have standards-complient software.

One concern I have might be that Open Source mandating laws could end up being repealed under heavy lobbying and if the legislature mandates the technologies used, maybe they might mandate Microsoft. So I think that O"Reilly has a point, but that the danger is greater in Cali than in Peru.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Yes, governments play by different rules. (Score:4, Insightful)
by Stonehand (lw2j@cs.cmu.edu) on Friday August 16, @01:19PM (#4083565)
(User #71085 Info | http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/~lw2j)
If an individual wants to restrict himself to Open Source, there's absolutely no problem with that, so long as it does not contradict any previously-signed-and-still-active agreements on his part not to do so. People are allowed to behave as ideologically as they choose, within pretty broad limits.

However, there is no excuse for a government doing so. Governments are supposed to be more responsible than that -- and to require a drastic litmus test that completely ignores more important issues, such as "is this the best tool for the job given our budget", is arrogance and foolishness.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
*No* license restrictions? (Score:2)
by Per Abrahamsen on Friday August 16, @01:19PM (#4083566)
(User #1397 Info | http://www.dina.kvl.dk/~abraham/)
So, should government organizations not be allowed to make *any* policies of what licenses they will accept?

Or is it just the requirement to be able to switch vendor for support and development (which is what an "open source" requirement really means) that should not be allowed as a policy?

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
WHAT?!?!? (Score:1)
by no_nicks_available on Friday August 16, @01:19PM (#4083567)
(User #463299 Info)
Open source advocates are zealots? No @#$%@#$ way!

At least there are a couple of them (read article) that have an ounce of common sense, unlike the typical /. poster/moderator.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
thank gawd (Score:2, Interesting)
by boola-boola on Friday August 16, @01:19PM (#4083568)
(User #586978 Info)
...This is something I've been worrying about, that anti-corporate zealots would turn the Open Source movement into something just as bad as the major corporations/monopolies.

I'm rather quite relieved to hear Tim O'Reilly of all people sharing the same opinion as me: that as good as open-source is, it should _NEVER_ be forced on people. That in essence destroys the 'freedom of choice' that is the driving force behind open-source. (hey, it rhymes...)

It is good that some of the "big players" are already thinking ahead about this, in case one day we actually do topple the big corporations (I'm not holding my breath). I wonder what RMS' and Torvalds' opinion of the matter is.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
"Bashes"? (Score:1)
by Marc2k on Friday August 16, @01:19PM (#4083570)
(User #221814 Info | http://www.emopirates.com/ | Last Journal: Friday March 22, @02:23PM)
To be perfectly honest, no, I have not yet read Tim's snippet. However, I don't think that "Bashes" should be used..I know that this isn't necessarily an objective news medium, but I think that a lot of Slashdot readers agree with him, as I've noted from recent related articles. He's not bashing the act, just stating that the act is no different than what the software giants were doing previously with their economy of scale. Just because we're on the morally correct side (moreso than say Microsoft, kindly proprietary software vendors do exist) doesn't justify shutting out other solutions.

If you love something, set it free. If the governments proposing similar things would step back from regulating the choice of software solution and let logic prevail, a lot of times they would end up using OS solutions anyway.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Gawd Mike! (Score:5, Insightful)
by Your_Mom (bejacksoNO@SPAMlynx.neu.edu) on Friday August 16, @01:20PM (#4083577)
(User #94238 Info | http://www.innismir.net/~bbj)
There are people in Government too, should they not be allow to choose whatever suits their job best? If someone found a VB application that does exactly what they want it to do, why should they be forced to use something that doesn't fit their needs correctly because it runs on a closed source system? Its unfair.

There are lots of programs that people are familiar and comfortable with and there should be no law mandating that they can't use them. You shouldn't criticize these guys [slashdot.org] until you stop doing the same thing.

Burnt Karma keeps me so warm...
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:Gawd Mike! (Score:5, Insightful)
    by blakestah (dblake@phy.ucsf.edu) on Friday August 16, @02:50PM (#4084463)
    (User #91866 Info | http://www.keck.ucsf.edu/~dblake)
    There are people in Government too, should they not be allow to choose whatever suits their job best? If someone found a VB application that does exactly what they want it to do, why should they be forced to use something that doesn't fit their needs correctly because it runs on a closed source system? Its unfair.

    Not really. The biggest issue to me is permanence of electronic formats. I can't read things I wrote 10 years ago - papers, documents, etc, b/c I just cannot find a machine that can read their format (Word 2.0).

    I think the government should use open source software wherever there is choice, and contribute heavily to open source development for applications where no good open source app exists. I think this because it ensures that the gov't software's security and interoperability can be verified by any interested parties. The data formats can be operating system agnostic. The software can work in all ways for the good of the people.

    This is NOT a move against any companies - any company should be free to provide an open source solution to the government's problems. And, the government can either do its own security audit, or check the security with another independent company, or the same company. There is more than one way to do it.

    Because, when it comes right down to it, do you trust current properietary software to secure our nation's secrets ?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • Re:Gawd Mike! by Your_Mom (Score:1) Friday August 16, @02:59PM
      • Re:upgrading by martin-boundary (Score:1) Friday August 16, @10:20PM
        • Re:upgrading by Your_Mom (Score:2) Friday August 16, @11:01PM
    • Re:Gawd Mike! by extrasolar (Score:2) Friday August 16, @11:44PM
  • Re:Gawd Mike! by gnugnugnu (Score:1) Friday August 16, @03:12PM
  • Re:Gawd Mike! by An Onerous Coward (Score:2) Friday August 16, @03:34PM
    • Re:Gawd Mike! by YrWrstNtmr (Score:1) Friday August 16, @04:02PM
  • Re:Gawd Mike! by Ian Bicking (Score:2) Friday August 16, @03:37PM
    • Re:Gawd Mike! (Score:4, Interesting)
    by Dirtside on Friday August 16, @03:48PM (#4084980)
    (User #91468 Info | http://matt.waggoner.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday February 21, @11:03PM)
    Someone working for an employer is constrained to use whatever tools that employer wants them to use. If you are working for the government, then your employer is the public. The public gets to decide how the government works, because the government's entire reason for existing is to serve the public. People seem to lose sight of this a lot.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • Re:Gawd Mike! by wfrp01 (Score:2) Friday August 16, @04:15PM
  • Re:Gawd Mike! by Ironica (Score:1) Friday August 16, @07:17PM
Tim or Bill? (Score:2)
by GuyMannDude on Friday August 16, @01:21PM (#4083590)
(User #574364 Info)

Man, when I first read the article title I thought it said "Bill O'Reilly (of FOX News) Bashes Open Source Efforts In Govt" and I was thinking "Oh God, please don't tell me we're going to start hearing about 'socialized software development'!"

This ain't a very good start of the day for me (10:30a is too early in the morning for me)...

GMD

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • Re:Tim or Bill? by Chicks_Hate_Me (Score:1) Friday August 16, @02:08PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
*Sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)
by Reality Master 101 (RealityMaster101@hotma i l . c om) on Friday August 16, @01:22PM (#4083601)
(User #179095 Info | http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Thursday April 04, @02:18PM)

Leave it to Michael to miss the point right under his nose.

Companies who make shoddy products do lose business when the government ups its standards, and they have the same choice as any business does: either produce better products, or lose the government's business.

Sheesh, Michael, READ YOUR OWN FREAKING WORDS. Yes, that's the way it should be done. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about "affirmative action" for software. Screw using the best solution, we're going to require open source whether it's the best solution or not.

If you want to advocate that all government DOCUMENTS must be in an open format, then that's a reasonable stand most people can get behind.

But to argue on the one hand that Government should be required to use open source no matter what, while on the other hand arguing that the government should always use the best products is nuttiness as best, and idiocy at worst.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • Idiocy at worst by argel (Score:1) Friday August 16, @02:02PM
  • Re:*Sigh* by Ian Bicking (Score:2) Friday August 16, @03:12PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:*Sigh* by mjh (Score:2) Friday August 16, @03:23PM
  • Re:*Sigh* by srmalloy (Score:1) Friday August 16, @03:31PM
  • Re:*Sigh* by Ironica (Score:1) Friday August 16, @07:50PM
  • Woah buddy... by clump (Score:2) Friday August 16, @07:50PM
    • What? by clump (Score:2) Saturday August 17, @10:50AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:*Sigh*-- Please provide a counterexample by Cinabrium (Score:1) Friday August 16, @08:50PM
  • Re:*Sigh* by Dan Crash (Score:2) Friday August 16, @03:00PM
    • Re:*Sigh* by Dirtside (Score:2) Friday August 16, @03:46PM
      • Re:*Sigh* by Dan Crash (Score:2) Friday August 16, @04:09PM
        • Re:*Sigh* by Dirtside (Score:2) Friday August 16, @04:15PM
          • Re:*Sigh* by Dan Crash (Score:2) Friday August 16, @04:52PM
            • Re:*Sigh* by Dirtside (Score:2) Friday August 16, @05:06PM
              • Re:*Sigh* by Ironica (Score:1) Friday August 16, @09:46PM
                • Re:*Sigh* by Dan Crash (Score:2) Saturday August 17, @01:20AM
    • Re:*Sigh* by Ironica (Score:1) Friday August 16, @08:02PM
      • Re:*Sigh* by Dan Crash (Score:2) Saturday August 17, @12:36AM
  • 4 replies beneath your current threshold.
It comes down to clout... (Score:1)
by OSgod on Friday August 16, @01:23PM (#4083618)
(User #323974 Info)
And O'Reilly has it -- he is usually well thought out, not always right but usually close.

Now who are you Michael?

Frankly, I agree with O'Reilly in the big picture. I agree with you a bit as well -- in that open source should lobby. We need to apply the "be careful what you ask for" rule here. I still say you don't want the overhead of government in open source, regulating open source or touching it in any way. Do you not remember the golden rule of government? What I touch I can tax and regulate.

In the US the best government is the least government.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Affirmative action (Score:1)
by Ducon Lajoie on Friday August 16, @01:23PM (#4083619)
(User #30475 Info)
You know, to me this whole things brings the same feeling as the debate on affirmative actions for minorities or disabled persons.

It's really touchy and there are always going to be people for and against, no matter how you turn the queston.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Question: (Score:2)
by Vengie on Friday August 16, @01:26PM (#4083632)
(User #533896 Info)
If Microsoft were to allow the governemnt employees involved, witn NDA's, to see the source for said MS products...would microsoft qualify as "open source?" The government isn't mandating FREE software...but open source software....and theoretically, this is due to wanting to see the 'flaws and limitations' first hand.....
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
The simple point is.... (Score:1)
by Pxtl (pxtl@remove_this_ ... il_me.hotmail.com) on Friday August 16, @01:26PM (#4083636)
(User #151020 Info | http://pxtl.org)
For one thing, a democratic government has no right to privacy unless national security is at stake. All doings within the government should be disclosed to its citizens, so that they can properly, responsibly perform their democratic function of selecting the government.

If it is not a threat to national security (opening up opportunities for hackers or other exploitation of a flaw in the system) then this should be extended to software. They can legislate that this material cannot be used elsewhere, but we have the right to know everything they do - a system that distributes SIN numbers, a system that ID's us, a system that handles billing for a government agency - we have the right to know the algorithms and flaws in the system as they effect us and they are accountable to us. They may copyright the functional use of this data to protect the investment of time by those who created the system, but this data should still be freely available information - just not actually compiled and used.

At least in theory. In practice everything I've just suggested is preposterous and impractical. But in theory this is the level of information we deserve from our government.

Besides, at the very least the government should stay at open, universal standards, so that there is no cost of entry into the study of politics. Personally, I believe that every library should have a TV stuck on C-Span and a computer linked to government websites containing existing and pending legislation, as well as information on the operating methods of all those responsible for acting out the government's will. 100% unlimited access to information on political discourse and the doings of a democratic is a right, or else the system is a fraud. A destitute bum should have the ability to find out whatever his government is and has been doing if he chooses to. Whether or not he does is his decision. That's freedom. That's democracy.

Again - this is ideal, and theoretical. Not practical. But we deserve to know everything our government does, no matter how insignificant. Since their code is an extension of themselves implementing the policies they set forth, then we need that too. How else can we make a truely informed decision, as is our right and duty in the democratic process?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Dammit, Michael (Score:2)
by American AC in Paris on Friday August 16, @01:26PM (#4083637)
(User #230456 Info | http://www.snowplow.org/tom/)
Tim O'Reilly Bashes Open Source Efforts in Govt???

You fscking twit.

Had you even read/bothered to comprehend the submitter's blurb you would have seen that O'Reilly is advocating a non-preferential approach to software selection. He wants a level playing field. Period. He wants to avoid launching the Open Source world into the same shitty realm of back-slapping, handshaking, sure-thing-old-chum crap that we're fighting against right now.

He is not Bashing Open Source Efforts. Ye gads, why on earth are you slandering Tim O'Reilly, of all people? He's on our side!

Would you please, please, please show a modicum of journalistic integrity, and make at least a cursory effort towards real reporting?

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
"Choice" in government (Score:1)
by Col. Klink (retired) ([wklink] [at] [freeshell.org]) on Friday August 16, @01:26PM (#4083639)
(User #11632 Info)
In a democracy, the People make their choices in an election.

If the DSSA is passed, the Government has not been forced to use Open Source by some outside force. The Government, as representative of the will of the People, has chosen to use Open Source.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
What are you talking about? (Score:5, Insightful)
by Clue4All on Friday August 16, @01:27PM (#4083645)
(User #580842 Info | http://www.mandrakelinux.com/)
O'Reilly is attempting to blur the distinction, a common rhetorical tactic but one which does not advance his argument.

Actually, he's advocating using the best tool for the job, and that zealous fanatics that insist on using Open Source everything will get us nowhere. Your implications that O'Reilly is being paid off by Microsoft are childish, to say the least. What article have you been reading?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Software vs. Storage Format (Score:5, Insightful)
by daoine (lizzie@@@acm...org) on Friday August 16, @01:27PM (#4083647)
(User #123140 Info | Last Journal: Monday August 19, @11:54AM)
I think one of the main problem with this issue is that it focuses on the wrong things. I don't think there should be any regulations on what type of software a government entity uses.

However, I *do* think it's important to focus on the format of the public data. Anything that is public property should not require proprietary software to access. I shouldn't have to buy MicroSoft products to read public documents.

Looking at it from that angle, Open Source is just one aspect of the solution. Documents could be produced in text, postscript, pdf, html -- there are plenty of formats with free readers (accessors) - which I think is the important part. That way, those creating the docs can use whatever tools they feel are best for the job, but those reading the documents aren't locked into those same tools.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Government Waste (Score:1)
by kraksmoka (kraksmoka@h[ ]ail.com ['otm' in gap]) on Friday August 16, @01:28PM (#4083652)
(User #561333 Info | http://heybartender.org/)
If we mandate Open Source in government all of us will benefit! Not that Open Source is always gratis, but think of the savings in the great beaurocratic halls of waste, $800 a head for Windows and MS Office, when OpenOffice would suffice.

I'm in Miami, where we have the most corrupt government in the USA. Our county manager was bought by Oracle, who after a year of committees and studies and what have you, chose them over PeopleSoft to create a county wide database.

The difference in cost was quite a few millions, not chump change. What made the episode even more shameful, was that the county's DBAs recommended the PeopleSoft system!

Fact, Open Source is typically a less expensive liscencing option. That's your money they're spending.

   
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Why most people like free software (Score:1)
by karb on Friday August 16, @01:28PM (#4083655)
(User #66692 Info | http://rocketmonkey.org/)
I have never met a serious geek that didn't really, really like free software.

I have also never met a serious geek (although there are some around) that likes free software because they have delusions of grandeur about all software being free.

I (and many others) like it because it works best in many situations.

However, I'm using commercial software right now. It works better for what I'm doing. I'm a pragmatist, at heart, which is what you need to be if you want to be a good software engineer.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
What the hell is the submitter thinking? (Score:1)
by WaxParadigm on Friday August 16, @01:28PM (#4083659)
(User #311909 Info)
These laws would be just as bad as the opposite: requiring the gov't to ONLY buy closed-source sw, or only use sw that is provided by a company, with support, yadda, yadda, yadda.

These restrictions are unthoughtful tinkerings into the world of SW. The people making decisions on which SW to use should be able to consider all the SW available and able make a decision (to use the best one). This shouldn't be regardless of the license...but that's one of the "features" of the SW to consider to see what is best. It's just dumb and ignorant to say "you much use only open source".

Some morron had to take a perfectly good article by Tim, but a bad spin on it, and add paragraphs of illogical comments (that couldn't be modded down).

I was a better person for having read Tim's article...but reading the /. version of it has taken all that away, plus some.

-I'm now a dumber person.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Let's put our OSS money where our mouth is.... (Score:5, Insightful)
by i_want_you_to_throw_ on Friday August 16, @01:28PM (#4083660)
(User #559379 Info)
I have a lone Linux box in a sea of NT boxes here at the Corps of Engineers. That box was put here because I was able to code a few dynamite apps that have since proven to be invaluable to the Corps.

It was the services that I was able to provide to the Corps that mandated inclusion of Linux into our infrastructure. I was able to more with my open source tools than the NT guys could with theirs.

I would not have wanted this box here by any method.

If you believe that Open Source can trounce proprietary methods based on its merits then you need to be against mandating Open Source.

All we need is a Microsoft disciple being FORCED to use OSS and being turned off forever. That converts no one.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Second Source (Score:1)
by RichMan on Friday August 16, @01:28PM (#4083661)
(User #8097 Info)
No company should really be buying Microsoft products. A basic tenet of survival is to always have an available second source for any vital components. This assures several things, amongst them being
1) competition for available market by the suppliers and therefore reduced prices
2) no hostage situation where you end up at the whim of your supplier
3) reduced possibilities of the supply disappearing due to problems within the supplier

These basic tenets were long ago abandoned by those following a Microsoft Solution TM.

An Open Source TM solution is much better. The right to run and modify the code cannot disappear. Anyone can be hired to work on and improve the code and you get full access to any contributions.

As a consumer of operating system and office products, open source, or operation with a fully public and multi-sourced interface, is the only way to go. The requirement of a fully public and open interface for programming against and database format should be the basis of buisness management, private and public. All suppliers should be required to demonstate full interoperation and replaceability before being considered.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
A sad story. (Score:2, Insightful)
by miffo.swe (hedblom@djup o . c om) on Friday August 16, @01:28PM (#4083663)
(User #547642 Info | Last Journal: Monday August 19, @02:18PM)
"We didn't fully understand the consequences of releasing software under the GPL (General Public License)," said Dick Schafer, deputy director of the NSA. "We received a lot of loud complaints regarding our efforts with SE Linux."

First i have a hard time believing that the NSA didnt read and interpret the GPL license before they begun.

And where has those complaints been coming from? I cant see any other company that would suffer from a secure linux effort other than Microsoft. I would love to know just what happened behind the scenes and how high up this went before it got ugly.

Considering the amount of work they spend on helping people to secure Windows the GPL should be a non issue unless politics and probably some very influencial people are behind this.

Its a real ugly battle and i do hope the real story gets out soon.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Michael's knee-jerk relflex... (Score:2)
by Kaa (freedomdotnet!kaa) on Friday August 16, @01:28PM (#4083664)
(User #21510 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
As far as I can tell, his only argument besides this is that if the citizenry pushes for the government to use Free software, companies will push back to use proprietary crud.

Michael, you really should read what you are trying to criticize. It does seem that "as far as you can tell" isn't very far.

Tim's two main points are:

(1) More choice is better than less choice. Forbidding to use commercial software == less choice.

(2) In many (but not all) cases governments should behave rationally and use the best tools available to do a task. Very often commercial software IS the best tool. Forbidding to use it doesn't seem very rational.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
O'Reilly MIsses the boat...again (Score:4, Insightful)
by dh003i (heinrich.rochester@rr@com) on Friday August 16, @01:29PM (#4083670)
(User #203189 Info | http://home.rochester.rr.com/tweak/)
Again, O'Reilly has missed the point.

his is not about OSS / FSS software on anyone. Its about transparency in the government -- about the people's right to know.

The people have the right to know exactly what source code the government is using to protect them. We have the right to know what code protects our privacy in, for example, records which are ruled sealed.

Lets say that your daughter's molested and a trial occurs, in which she testifies. For her protection, her testimony is sealed; if an electronic copy is made, it is cryptographically sealed. If this is done using proprietary software, we the citizens have no way of being assured that it is really secure. If the software used to do that is OSS / FS, then we can check and make sure.

This is a somewhat important example, but the same principal applies to even trivial things. We, the citizens, have the right to know exactly how the software our government is using works; at least where it pertains to us.

Obviously, military top secret stuff is different; though it certainly need not be based on proprietary technology -- nothing prevents the military from modifying OSS / FS software and then keeping those modifications secret within the division. As that doesn't really count as distribution; i.e., in house modifications are not considered "distributed". Its only "distribution" when you make it available to the general public.

That is why the government mustI use OSS / FS, because of our right to know.

An additional benefit is cost-effectiveness. Our tax dollars pay for this stuff, and in almost all cases, OSS / FS is a cheaper solution, both in terms of initial price and total cost of ownership.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
He's wrong... (Score:2)
by Autonomous Crowhard on Friday August 16, @01:30PM (#4083684)
(User #205058 Info)
This is the same as welfare or Widows and Orphans laws. They are intended to give those that do not have deep pockets a chance to compete against those with deep pockets [cnn.com].

In open software's case there are people willing to volunteer to lobby but they just don't have the resources to appeal to a congresscritter's wallet^H^H^H^H^H^Hsenibilities.

In the end, something has to be done to level the playing field. Laws like this will do just that.

The big question is: Why is O'reilly doing this? Has Billy Deep-Pockets gotten to him? Or is he worried that laws like this will make it difficult for him to make a profit int he future?

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
All software? (Score:1)
by metoc on Friday August 16, @01:31PM (#4083694)
(User #224422 Info)
Does this mean that the California government cannot buy ANY software the doesn't have open source?
That would include software upgrades to:
Cisco IOS routers
Traffic light controllers
Motherboard BIOS
Government owned telephone switches
etc.
 
So the mantra will be I am not buying software upgrades to "insert name of device with buggy software here" because the manaufacture isn't open source.
 
Now is the time to start making Linux powered phone switches, traffic controllers, and routers!
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Reminds me of a quote... (Score:1)
by sukottoX on Friday August 16, @01:32PM (#4083707)
(User #601412 Info)
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
I don' t want my data locked up (Score:3, Insightful)
by alext (<ku.oc.rednoyeulb> <ta> <3txela>) on Friday August 16, @01:32PM (#4083713)
(User #29323 Info | http://coming.shortly.com/)
Surely if O'Reilly followed the Peruvian campaign he must have understood that the goal is to ensure that public data remains public, and that that implies openness in formats?

He seems to skate over this and just characterize any policy for open source as arbitrary prejudice.

Openness in requirements is important, just don't forget what the key requirements should be.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Kneejerk Slashdottism (Score:1)
by jjohnson on Friday August 16, @01:33PM (#4083718)
(User #62583 Info | http://www.justinalia.com)
That's the OP in a nutshell.

O'Reilly's argument isn't "the right tool for the right job". His argument is that requiring the use of Open Source in government is a losing strategy for Open Source because it polarizes the software community and encourages vendors of proprietary software to fight back harder with legal weapons.

There's nothing wrong with pushing Open Source use in government. But accomplishing by law what can't accomplished in a fair procurement market (which should be mandated by law) is a recipe for Open Source to become the affirmative action software--unable to compete on its merits, it succeeds by political hackery
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Best tool for the job (Score:2)
by GCP on Friday August 16, @01:33PM (#4083721)
(User #122438 Info)
I love open source software. There's a lot of proprietary software I love, too.

I don't want myself told that I have to use an inferior tool just because it's open source. I don't want my government to have similar restrictions.

If open source is better, then let it *compete*. If free (price) and open source still aren't enough to persuade users to switch, then maybe it's not yet as good as its proponents claim it is, and maybe that's where they should focus their energies.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Government Requirements (Score:2, Insightful)
by kris_lang on Friday August 16, @01:33PM (#4083722)
(User #466170 Info)
It's not a question of forcing anyone to buy only open source or only closed source software. That thrust of questioning obfucates the underlying issue. The actions of governing bodies ought to be accessible to the governed and there should not be any imposition of closed or proprietary standards required to interact with our government.

Documents should be available in non-proprietary formats, and documents required to be submitted to governmental agencies should not be forced to have to be in proprietary formats. This should be a basic requirement for our governing bodies at the federal, state/commonwealth, county/parish, and city levels.

If proprietary software should have to compete to meet these obligations. The smart way to insert open source software components is not to claim that open source is inherently better (even though it obviously is), but to show how open source meets the standards of an open governing system.

Closed systems are too often present at all levels. I can understand that scholarly journals may have requirements that manuscripts be submitted in the word processing format of their choice and on the preferred media of their choice. Those are just the rules of the game you have to play if you choose to publish in peer reviewed journals. At least the mathematical journals accept LaTex. And some printing services prefer Quark files for their layout services. That's their prerogative. However, all citizens have to interact with their governments at time. And the gov't ought not to impose the requirement that anyone wishing to submit proposals under requests for proposals or wishing to submit legal documentation be required to use proprietary data interchange formats. Proprietary formats require the use of proprietary software which may cost some citizens too much. It is not just for a government to keep some of their citizens out of the game.

    And this lack of justice is the key reason that open formats should be used. And the fact that open source software can best meet the usage of open formats is the best reason that open source software ought to be used.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
michael... poor, sad, little michael... (Score:3, Funny)
by trix_e on Friday August 16, @01:34PM (#4083728)
(User #202696 Info)
It's too bad the Authors don't have an 'Anonymous Idiot' option when they post something.

michael, it's crap propoganda like this that makes it even harder for open source advocates to maintain credibility.

You deserve the Katz'ing that you're getting.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Huh? Just another requirement. (Score:2)
by Hard_Code on Friday August 16, @01:34PM (#4083732)
(User #49548 Info)
Uh, how is access to source code (and/or the freedom to modify it) any different from the usual list of product requirements? If propriety software vendors want the business of the government, then they'll provide the features the client wants. I certainly wouldn't want my government procuring military vehicles, for instance, without specification sheets and the ability to repair them, etc.

The details of the source code license can be hammered out seperately, or on a case by case basis, as most features are (e.g., one restriction might be that nobody but the originating company may use the source for commercial profit - which would be fine for gov).

Of course this doesn't need to be legislated as an absolute. IIRC, the Peruvian proposol only says "use open source if there is no better proprietary software that suits the purposes". Nobody is saying "use open source period, end of story, never ever ever ever use proprietary software". That's ridiculous. Where openness of code and protocols and formats is critical, access to source code is just another client requirement.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
No way. (Score:1)
by Snar Bloot on Friday August 16, @01:34PM (#4083734)
(User #324250 Info)
Requiring "industry", especially government, to use only Open Source will never work. Sorry, Open Source Advocates....it won't, so fire away.

Look, I work for a state government (not CA). While I think it should be allowable to USE open source software, the IT department is still going to have to set and enforce certain standards.

Plus, there's an awful lot of vertical applications out there that governments need. It's not like it's all Windows and Office, folks! Ever think about all the different functions in a government? Building and maintaining roads, issuing licenses, handling welfare payments, collecting taxes, issuing tax refunds, tracking the use of every type of agricultural product under the sun, providing for the public health, administering prisons, hospitals, running a court system....it goes on and on and on.

Sure, encourage open source, but require it? Never. Too many niche areas.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
O'Reilly is right (Score:2)
by Preposterous Coward on Friday August 16, @01:35PM (#4083736)
(User #211739 Info)
The government's role (idealistically, at least) is to serve the people, and IT is a set of tools that helps achieve that end. The government should be using the set of tools that best allows it to do that. Certainly free software has a lot going for it, in terms of both cost and the availability of source code, but there may be cases where for one reason or another proprietary software is simply the best solution.

To take a hypothetical example, what if defense contractors were unwilling to open-source missile-targeting software because it considers that information part of its proprietary competitive advantage? Do we want to put the government in the position of saying no, we can't use the best targeting package, we have to use whatever open-source option is available? That seems hugely irresponsible.

O'Reilly is right that open-source options should always be among the products considered for procurement, but to require them is a mistake. It ignores the fact that IT decisions (engineering decisions in general) entail tradeoffs -- between functionality, cost, usability, training difficulty, support, compatibility, performance, and many other factors -- and that mandating open-source solutions may require unacceptable levels of compromise on other dimensions that might be more important in a given situation.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Don't force open source, force to open the source (Score:2)
by mocm on Friday August 16, @01:35PM (#4083737)
(User #141920 Info | http://www.metzlerbros.de)
The government shouldn't necessarily force the use of OSS, but rather make it a requirement to have full access to the source of a product they intent to use.
The difference would be that the software manufacturer doesn't need to change the license, but will have to make the source code available for review by the public. That doesn't mean that they give away their software. They still have the copyright and any use of the code without a license would be illegal.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Mantra (Score:3, Interesting)
by Shadow Wrought on Friday August 16, @01:35PM (#4083741)
(User #586631 Info)
Sorry if I don't go along with the mantra, but I think that O'Reilly has a valid point. Legislating open source in government is not the answer.

I think a better solution would be a competition, ala defense procurements. The government lists what it needs, and everyone shows up and demonstrates what they can do. If open source can do everything the government needs, at a fraction of the price, then you have you solution. You could even put in place a performance to cost ratio to determine value. (ie- This product can 90% of what this other product does, but costs $250,000 less. Is 10% worth $250,000?)

I'm not saying that the procurement process isn't flawed, just that legislative mandates have historically spawned unintended consequences at a prodigious rate.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • Re:Mantra by Dirtside (Score:3) Friday August 16, @03:32PM
    • Re:Mantra by kirkjobsluder (Score:2) Friday August 16, @03:46PM
      • Re:Mantra by Dirtside (Score:2) Friday August 16, @04:03PM
He's right, at least partially (Score:2)
by Dark Nexus on Friday August 16, @01:35PM (#4083747)
(User #172808 Info | http://www.cwal.net/)
The proposed law in California seems about as draconian as it's inverse would be.

I see no mention of a clause that (IIRC) Peru's proposed legislation has, that allows proprietary software to be used if there's no open source project that fits the project.

Instead of buing the round block for the round hole, they'll have to take a square block and slice & dice it until it's round?

Then there's the simple fact that Open Source isn't automatically better.

Let's face it, no matter how many Open Source projects are equal to or better than proprietary equivalents, there are still numerous pieces of proprietary software that are currently better than any Open Source equivalent.

At least one country realized this (Norway, IIRC), and just mandated that Open Source be considered along side Close Source programs.

Let them all stand on their merits (price, polish, support, ease of use, et al), and as long as the file formats are open, let the best software (for each job) win.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Open source in government (Score:1)
by MrCawfee on Friday August 16, @01:36PM (#4083752)
(User #13910 Info | http://www.xcheese.org)
i personally believe that when the government has a duty to support American companies, and unfortunately if this passes it will serously limit the options of government to do that. In times like now where the economy isn't doing too well historically government spending increases to boost the economy, and unfortunately if they aren't going to support a corporation, RedHat or Microsoft, then one of their inherited obligations of helping the economy is going to suffor.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
There are more factors to consider (Score:2, Troll)
by starseeker on Friday August 16, @01:37PM (#4083765)
(User #141897 Info | http://screenshots.sourceforge.net)
OK, I can understand that people don't like the idea of forcing people to use open source. I agree that it is not a preferable way to go. But I think there is an important point here beyond the politics.

Governments handle much of our crucial information - defense info, Social Security, tax stuff, etc. I have no doubt that most office workers doing their thing use Office tools in the government, and commercial programs for critical data processing. On the face of it, it would seem silly not to. Commercial software is supported.

But what happens if a major software provider for the government goes bust? No source code, no way to fix problems. That isn't acceptable. Period. So maybe the thing to do is to ensure that, rather than force the government to use open source software, have things work so that any license the government gets for software includeds a copy of the source, and the right to maintain it should the company supporting it go bust or EOL the product. That would be justifiable and a good idea.

Open source has the advantage of already being fully available. But mandating open source is overkill. Mandating consideration of open source, including the cost of adding features to or creating a new project - that I can see and would approve of. Not mandating open source for all uses. Some software is hard to develop in an open environment, such as specialized research software for scientific applications.

Where I can see mandating open code, either BSD or public domain licensing, is in software government employees write, excepting critical security code. If they do some useful database software with taxpayer money, why shouldn't we use it? But that doesn't restrict government usage of commercial software.

Just my opinion of course, but to me it makes sense. Make sure that govenment used software doesn't become unmaintainable (not unmaintained, note, just not unmaintainable) and that government written software is open and available whenever possible.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Should the government... (Score:2, Interesting)
by graboy on Friday August 16, @01:40PM (#4083779)
(User #324263 Info)
Should the government stop buying commercial routers because they use a proprietary operating system?

Should the government ground the entire F-16 fleet until some open source programmer releases a GPL F-16 fire control system?

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
No. (Score:2)
by 13Echo on Friday August 16, @01:40PM (#4083791)
(User #209846 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
People choose licenses for a reason. A single type of license is *not* the law.

I love Linux, and use it at home on my only desktop machine, but I would never want to force someone to use it. Weather or not it is the best tool for the job, people should have a choice. GNU/Linux is about choice. I want to be able to buy some proprietary software (like Opera), but we need STANDARDS. That is what it is about. Relying on one provider is not the answer. That goes for closed and open source alike.

Face it. There are just some things that you can't do with open source software, but closed options often limit the ability to be competitive, and to innovate. We've seen this for years.

In the end, closed advocates (e.g. Microsoft) are going to try to force out OSS by the means of the DMCA. I know that it is ridiculously unfair, but we have to work around it. If we try to force *everyone* to use OSS, then we will be no better. Yes, open source software will improve drastically, but we will lose the drive to be competitive. The same goes for closed software. Microsoft's attempt to lock down control over all forms of media and software will cause the same effect. We must be level with all of this.

I don't want my favorite OS to be pushed out of existence because some silly politician was too ignorant to support it for its benefits (I know that is the fear of many), but forcing people to use it isn't going to fight the opposition in favor of Palladium, and the likes.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Go Tim, go! (Score:2)
by jukal on Friday August 16, @01:40PM (#4083792)
(User #523582 Info | http://www.openchallenge.org/ | Last Journal: Tuesday August 20, @04:57AM)
Jondor's [slashdot.org] comment about open protocols instead [slashdot.org] was maybe the best in the previous discussion, originating from the Software Choice [slashdot.org] campaign.

I also still believe that: " I do think that it is a big plus for many (or most) products if it is an open source one. Even if it was true in all cases, some closed source products can still be superior. There are cases and specialist areas in which development under closed source can be done with bigger and better resources, which eventually results in a better product. ...and I must say that I prefer open source a lot... and still I think these proposed open source -only laws are utterly stupid."

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
You don't get it. (Score:1)
by Loligo on Friday August 16, @01:42PM (#4083806)
(User #12021 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
>his lame arguments are no reason to stop pushing
>for governments to use Free or Open Source
>software wherever possible.

His point was that the legislation would require the government to use free or open source software at all times, not "wherever possible".

Use the best tool for the job. If that's free/open, great. If it's not, oh well.

As a citizen and taxpayer, I'd be more annoyed at the government being forced to use a cheaper yet inferior product if a better one is available.

  -l
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
FUD, much? (Score:5, Insightful)
by EllF on Friday August 16, @01:45PM (#4083841)
(User #205050 Info | http://ellf.net/)
Good god, Michael.

O'Reilly makes a *very* important point about forcing governments to use Open Source software: it's morally reprehensible. Quoting from a letter sent to Tim, "If you feel you have to coerce people, it would be better to force them to increase their disclosure. Require officials to document their acquisition critieria, require companies to publish their licensing policies, insist on use of open file formats for publicly accessible documents. That is, increase the flow of information and the range of choices, rather than trying to decrease them. That's what Open Source is supposed to be about - increasing choices, right?"

Moreoever, your criticisms against Tim are as sophomoric as they are transparent:

1."O'Reilly seems to be promoting the agenda of Microsoft's Software Choice campaign. He's a business man; perhaps there's a reason we don't know about." His manner employment is irrelevant - attacking an argument that calls into question the "slippery slope" of using legislation to force a particular subset of software upon a goverment on the grounds that the author of the argument is a businessman is an ad homimen fallacy, not a substantial critique.

2. "Saying "People should be free to keep their papers private" as an argument against government FOI laws is just a stupid strawman, unworthy of further debate." Ok, agreed. Where does Tim say this? Where does this quote come from? The argument O'Reilly has against forcing the government of CA to use Open Source software is that "any victory for open source achieved through deprivation of the user's right to choose would indeed be a betrayal of the principles that free software and open source have stood for" - a point that is very different from some claim to a person's right to privacy.

3. "Governments play by different rules. They need to be fiscally responsible, transparent to the public, and promote the public commonwealth whenever possible." I argue that the public commonwealth is best promoted by protecting what O'Reilly calls "Freedom Zero": "the freedom to offer your work to the world on the terms that you choose, and for the recipients to accept or reject those terms." When you start to force *any* entity to use software, you're violating what I perceive to be one of the fundamental principles of the Free software movement.

4."Whatever his motives, his lame arguments are no reason to stop pushing for governments to use Free or Open Source software wherever possible." Pushing for governments to use Free/Open Source software is fine, but O'Reilly's "lame arguments" boil down to the simple notion that "This last temptation is the greatest treason: to do the right deed for the wrong reason."

Although I've come to expect the mentality of least resistance here at /., it's depressing to see an editor such as yourself bashing an article that endorses the ideological foundations for the Open Source movement. Spewing links to Microsoft FUD and drawing vague connections to ridiculous and oversimplified statements that no one would disagree with in an attempt to bolster such a weak argument might fool some of this community, but not all of us.

As Fight Club said, "sticking feathers up your butt doesn't make you a chicken." Thanks for the proof, Michael.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Open Source is already in the Government (Score:1, Insightful)
by Mattzilla on Friday August 16, @01:47PM (#4083868)
(User #525821 Info)
There are lots of examples of Open Source sw being used in the government. It's already used by NASA on the International Space Station [sheflug.co.uk] and on various SpaceFlight experiments such as Flight Linux [nasa.gov]. The NERSC also works with Linux and provides M-VIA [nersc.gov] which is an implementation of Virtual Interface Architecture (VIA) for Linux. The above are but just a few places in government where Open Source sw is already being used.

The government, as explained in Micheal's text, needs to account for its spending and show transparency...it cannot favor *anybody* or any *product* without justification. Therefore, it is only logical that at this time we find Open Source being used in the Research and Development areas of the government where the flexibility and COST of Open Sw gives it an undeniable advantage.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • 17 replies beneath your current threshold.
    • (1) | 2 | 3 (Slashdot Overload: CommentLimit 50)
    		  What if everything is an illusion and nothing exists? In that case, I definitely overpaid for my carpet. -- Woody Allen, "Without Feathers"
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2002 OSDN.
    [ home | awards | contribute story | older articles | OSDN | advertise | self serve ad system | about | terms of service | privacy | faq ]