all the 'open source' legislation bills i have seen only require the state to consider open source products so it seems like it levels the playing field since the commercial software companies use lots of $$$ and lobbyists. one has to wonder if the city of portland could have cut it's losses with the company they contracted to change the water bureau billing system IF they had a contract that said the city owns the source code and since you can't make it work we are going to put this out to bid to find someone else to fix it OR to have also hired a watchdog to review the code as it was being implemented. now that's free market! Brad Siemssen wrote: > > On Monday, July 14, 2003, at 11:08 PM, Andrew Plato wrote: > >> I think any legislation that "directs" or "demands" the state to use >> open >> source without equally considering commercial, is a bad idea. > > > True, legislation that "requires" a particular sort of software is not > good. However, in the specific case of the Oregon proposal, the state > would be required to "consider" Open Source, and justify why Open > Source isn't used. The reason for this sort of requirement is that > often Open Source solutions are never looked at. > > Brad > > _______________________________ > Brad Siemssen > Strongbox Network Services > brad@private > www.strongboxnetworks.com > 503.466.1416 > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Jul 16 2003 - 13:26:06 PDT