After
reading this article and then retching uncontrollably for the next 10 minutes,
I wanted to share one highly educated idiots IT Viewpoints on "Open Source
software". Mind you, The author's Bio follows the article and is included for
your information....

My favorite quotes as well as my
responses follow:

" The American IT industry predominantly uses commercial licenses for its
software and would unquestionably be harmed by state preferences for
non-commercial licenses. In addition, state IT workers who have developed
skills in commercial software from Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM could face
obsolescence and replacement unless states dedicate new dollars for worker
retraining."

OK...so let's continue on the cycle of proprietary locked-down insecure
software due to the fact "you believe" that State IT Workers
would need re-training and possibly be outsourced to Free Software
educated IT Workers...First of all, you give little or no credit to State IT
Workers as to their "comprehension" and/or re-training. You cite the '"plight
of the Poor Wretched Untrainable IT Worker" but seriously neglect the State's
cost for proprietary systems which eat up $$$ in TCO, Security (let's not
forget all those wonderful little security holes like VB Script, IIS, and ever
popular hackable Outlook mail client; last but not least spyware and viruses
which run rampant on Windows based systems) and forced software
upgrades/maintenance. From your perspective, it's fine for the State to pass
these costs along to the local citizens as long as your maintain your Locked
Down Antiquated Software Security Nightmare called "Proprietary Commercial
Software".

" One possible appeal of open source licensing is that programmers can
freely modify and customize the program to suit their own purposes. But when a
programmer employed in a state agency changes just a few lines of code, he
voids any quality and support guarantees from the vendors who initially
provided the software. By modifying the software, the state shoulders the
burden of software support. While the state might be able to purchase support
contracts for its modified software, those added costs are further proof the
free software isn't free."

Wrong again....Changing or modifying a program does not necessarily "voids
any quality and support guarantees from the vendors who initially provided the
software" unless the programmer doing the modification is ill-equipped to be a
programmer. Software development aka coding, programming etc. whether in C++,
Java, Python etc has basic tenets and rules which translate to both Free and
Proprietary Software. Maybe the emphasis here should be more on correcting the
shoddy habit of creating software developers in 6-8 courses who have
little or no computer experience whatsoever. IT is one field where
accurate technical proficiency is not a luxury but a necessary pre-requisite
to getting the job down correctly as opposed to turning out crappy
sub-standard software (proprietary or otherwise).

 

THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE
19 South LaSalle Street #903
Chicago,
IL 60603
phone 312/377-4000 · fax
312/377-5000
http://www.heartland.org

---

'Free' Software Isn't
Free

Author: Steve DelBianco
Published: The Heartland
Institute 01/01/2005

States facing budget shortfalls are poring over government management and
purchasing practices in search of any sort of savings. At the same time, a
worldwide movement for "free and open software" falsely promises something for
nothing plus the ability to modify code and share changes among users.

State legislators attracted to the free software flame are likely to get
burned if preference legislation opens a dangerous back door to purchasing
safeguards and ends up costing more than commercial software alternatives.

It's not unusual for state legislatures to implement public policy choices
with laws affecting state purchases of information technology (IT) products
and services. For example, many states have bidding rules that confer
advantages to in-state businesses, and some have passed increased security
standards in the wake of cyberterrorism threats.

However, even well-intentioned legislation can produce unpredictable and
undesirable results when it affects complex software decisions made at the
state agency and departmental level. Moreover, taking the risk of unintended
consequences isn't justifiable when state IT managers are already, on their
own, making the very choices legislatures seek to enforce.

Many Definitions of "Open Source"

Open source is widely used as an umbrella term for more than 85 different
software license agreements that variously allow access to the source code, or
recipe, for the program. However, the term "open source" is neither precise
nor instructive, since these licenses vary greatly in their terms, and some
are actually quite restrictive when it comes to modifying and redistributing
software.

Cost-sensitive state managers are attracted to "free software" on the
promise of saving money and avoiding the procurement processes that govern
proposals and purchasing decisions. While initially appealing, free software
has costs and risks that should be understood when considering legislation
that favors its use.

With all software, the price of acquisition is just the first cost incurred
over the life cycle of an application. IT managers know to expect additional
upfront costs for training, data conversion, and integration, plus several
years of ongoing costs for maintenance, upgrades, and support. This concept is
well understood as "total cost of ownership (TCO)." Within the context of TCO,
an initial cost advantage for free software can be offset by higher life cycle
costs.

Modify at Your Own Risk

One possible appeal of open source licensing is that programmers can freely
modify and customize the program to suit their own purposes. But when a
programmer employed in a state agency changes just a few lines of code, he
voids any quality and support guarantees from the vendors who initially
provided the software. By modifying the software, the state shoulders the
burden of software support. While the state might be able to purchase support
contracts for its modified software, those added costs are further proof the
free software isn't free.

The American IT industry predominantly uses commercial licenses for its
software and would unquestionably be harmed by state preferences for
non-commercial licenses. In addition, state IT workers who have developed
skills in commercial software from Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM could face
obsolescence and replacement unless states dedicate new dollars for worker
retraining.

Legislative preferences also can hamper state IT directors, who are charged
with implementing multi-year comprehensive IT strategies across government
agencies. They also are struggling to deploy e-government solutions that are
accessible and secure for citizens and business users. To execute these
long-term IT plans, states have to keep a tight rein on IT purchasing
decisions made by agencies. But state mandates for open source licensed
software could encourage decentralized purchasing decisions, without regard
for a state's broader IT strategy.

Finally, in an era of viruses, worms, and spyware, IT security has never
been more important. State IT directors must be confident that any software
deployed in state government will be adequately protected from threats to
security and information privacy. Software that's downloaded and deployed
without state approval could compromise the security of sensitive citizen
information such as Social Security numbers or health records.

State legislators should exercise their oversight role to get the best
value for their state's software dollars, but they must also maintain an open
and competitive environment so that all software and services are scrutinized
according to rules developed through decades of experience. Moreover, state IT
managers are in the best position to evaluate which technologies and licensing
methods fit with specific agency needs and plans. And businesses serving the
states are already offering and supporting software with a variety of
licensing terms, including open source.

Legislative preferences for open source licensing will only limit choice
and restrict competition in what is already an intensely competitive
market.

---

Steve DelBianco represents the Association for Competitive Technology
and the NetChoice Coalition. He is also private-sector chair of the
Competition Subcommittee of the American Legislative Exchange Council's
Telecommunications and Information Technology Task Force. This article is
adapted from "No Such Thing as Free Software," published in ALEC Policy
Forum: Jeffersonian Principles in Action, Spring 2004.