On Tuesday, September 24, 2002, at 02:36 PM, Crispin Cowan wrote: >> A few basic axioms of this debate is: >> 1> "monopolies increase cost by reducing competition" > > Yes. In a free market, and if we assume the monopoly will always and only act to maximize profit. In countries with market economies monopolies frequently operate under increased government regulation and subsidization. For that reason we can't say for certain that a railroad monopoly or a power generation monopoly will always increase (or decrease) price. Monopolies are also easy targets for canard regulations and excessive taxation. Many countries with nationalized and subsidized monopolies compete successfully with U.S. counterparts. >> The topics I want to discuss are >> What procedure are need to improve software quality for the state? > > My position on this: > > * The State should mandate that when *custom* software is procured > by the state that the source code be delivered to the state under > an open source license, so that the State is not placed in a > monopoly lock position of having only one vendor to supply > support for that system. Governments and big companies frequently negotiate source escrow contracts, so if the software vendor goes out of business the customers with clout have the source code they depend on. That's not the same as open source licensing, though. Having access to the source only if the vendor goes belly up is not the same as having access to the source for maintenance purposes while the vendor is still in business. In real life big customers often negotiate source licenses under NDA, enabling them and their contractors to work on the software as long as they don't try to resell it. Of course the original vendor usually washes their hands of support obligations as soon as the customer monkeys with the code. Large applications usually spawn associated VARs and ISVs that specialize in customizing, extending, and maintaining those apps, filling in the spaces the software vendor can't profitably address. VARs and ISVs may have source code access themselves, depending on the deal they work out. My point is, there are alternatives to open source licensing that address the needs of the customer to have some control over the source code, while protecting the software vendor's intellectual property. That's not to say that open source licensing is a bad idea, just that it isn't the only solution. Whether or not copyright law covers software, or whether or not it should be the primary IP protection for software, is irrelevant given the amount of time and money--not to mention uncertainty--involved in mounting a copyright infringement lawsuit when various overlapping source code licenses and NDAs are involved. By the time such a case gets in front of a court the damage is done, and the most likely outcome is to bankrupt the loser. Under NDAs and contract law at least the parties have tort law and possible criminal remedies for theft of trade secrets, etc. > * The State should *consider* open source solutions when procuring > commodity systems, but should not be required to choose open > source for any particular application. This is because open source > is *sometimes* the best solution (e.g. Apache is the most > cost-effective web server) and sometimes not (AbiWord and Star > Office are simply not viable competition for MS Office. Yet :) Agreed... forcing the government or anyone else to choose open source in every case, as some people propose and some countries seem bent on enforcing, is anti-competitive and does not ensure quality or lowest price. The open source community is unlikely to produce massive and specialized software systems such as what the IRS or FAA or State of Oregon need. >> How the bidding for software can be done to improve quality and >> security? > > Dunnow. Some of the things I've heard here about how the State > procures consulting services in general, and software in particular, > are pretty depressing. Well I know how it works in California: the governor's staff and Oracle sales reps circle-jerk each other. My experience in working for and selling to government agencies leads me to believe that such arrangements are the norm; as usual Oracle was just more brazen and greedy about it. > >> One idea is to have development and maintaince be two seperate >> contracts. But this would also require a formal acceptance testing >> procedure. > > Just mandating open source licensing of custom procured software > obviates that complexity. If the State has open source rights to the > code, then they can hack any contract they want for support. This is the niche that ISVs, VARs, and certified consultancies address now. -- Greg Jorgensen PDXperts LLC, Portland, Oregon, USA
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Sep 24 2002 - 16:25:00 PDT