|
|
|
  |
 |
|
       |
|
|
| O'Reilly Network Weblogs |
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
Editor's Note: Join the discussion at Slashdot generated by Tim's Weblog below, as well as by a Slashdot posting from Michael, titled "Tim O'Reilly Bashes Open Source Efforts in Government." Despite Michael's inflammatory title, Tim's posting has engendered quite a debate, with viewpoints coming down on all sides of this issue. One Slashdot commenter had this to say: "[Tim is] just saying that the government should use the best tools for the job, and not belabor its choices with (more) bureaucracy." Another says, "We should be more concerned about pushing the government to use open *standards*, rather than open source software." What do you think? I just received some thought-provoking mail in response to the recent news about the proposed Digital Software Security Act, which would require open source software to be used in California state agencies. According to news.com, " If enacted as written, state agencies would be able to buy software only from companies that do not place restrictions on use or access to source code." This mail comes from someone I've worked with for the past several years in promoting open source in corporate America. He's a thoughtful advocate for the benefits of open source, but he's disturbed (as am I) by the growing politicization of open source. He asked me to keep his mail anonymous, because he doesn't have permission to speak for his employer (and it's not Microsoft!). He wrote:
I'd be all in favor of legislation that mandates Open Standards where applicable, and requires government bodies to seriously consider Open Source alternatives. But what we're getting is attempts to *require* use of Open Source software - effectively criminalizing an official' s decision to buy commercial software to meet their needs. First in Peru, and now here. And at LinuxWorld it is apparently being preached and accepted as part of the "party doctrine." Whether you want to argue on moral grounds of personal freedom, or the practical grounds of generating a backlash, this seems like an extremely counter-productive strategy for Open Source advocates to be pursuing. Sincere and understandable, but horribly misguided. By asking for government mandates on software purchasing, they're practically inviting the commercial software developers to lobby for legislation forbidding Open Source, in response to 'our' efforts to require it. From my perspective, I would think the Open Source community would be much better served if it took the moral high ground and called for Openness in Software Procurement. 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? And wouldn't that put the commercial companies on the defensive, rather than letting -them- wrap themselves in the flag of freedom of choice? Does this make any sense? Wouldn't a legislative agenda of increasing openness, rather than mandating choices, be more in keeping with the philosophy and culture of Open Source? Shouldn't someone with credibility be advocating such a balanced approach, rather than letting the radicals drive the public agenda? Does it bother you, too, or am I just being oversensitive? As T.S. Eliot said in Murder in the Cathedral: "This last temptation is the greatest treason: to do the right deed for the wrong reason." No one should be forced to choose open source, any more than they should be forced to choose proprietary software. And 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. Tim O'Reilly is founder and president of O'Reilly & Associates and an activist for Internet standards and for open source software.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
     |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copyright © 2000-2002 O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved. All trademarks and registered trademarks appearing on the O'Reilly Network are the property of their respective owners. For problems or assistance with this site, email help@oreillynet.com |
|
 |
Do you think we ought to be legislating software licensing policies?