Advertisement
Front, Kernel, Security, Distributions, Development. See your byline here on LWN.net.
Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
New Texas Bill Moves Software Acquisition Reform Forward (Linux Journal)
Doc Searls looks at possible software acquisition policy changes in Texas in the Linux Journal.
"It seems there's a fundamental problem for many state governments that
want to acquire and use free software: they can't buy it. Literally.
That's because the state software acquisition process doesn't know what
to do with software that nobody owns or sells."
(Log in to post comments)
New Texas Bill Moves Software Acquisition Reform Forward (Linux Journal) Posted Mar 20, 2003 9:46 UTC (Thu) by beejaybee (guest, #1581) [Link] This is a serious issue which is not self-evident to those of us already in the linux community. Glad to see it's been identified.I guess we have to modify the GNU license to allow software to be sold at a nominal price (1 cent) in order that paperwork can be generated to satisfy the beaurocrats. This seems to be a shattering blow to RMS & his band of idealists. Does the end justify the means?
New Texas Bill Moves Software Acquisition Reform Forward (Linux Journal) Posted Mar 20, 2003 11:08 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] Um, nonsense. The problem this article addresses is a legal problem in that some governments can't get software without buying it from entities that have formal legal existence.The GPL and LGPL permit software sale; indeed, software which may not be sold for a fee is not, by most definitions, free software (see, for instance, the X11R6.4 fiasco and near-fork). If free software was unsellable, how do you think the commercial Linux distributors make their money? I've never read a word by RMS that states that selling software is bad; what he's against is locking it up (by e.g. selling only binaries and not providing source, or banning recipients from doing the same sort of thing). The problem (if it is a problem) with selling free software is that anyone you sell to could undercut you; but the Cygnus model shows how to overcome that (modify free software for somebody, and choose for a while not to distribute it to anyone but that person...)
New Texas Bill Moves Software Acquisition Reform Forward (Linux Journal) Posted Mar 21, 2003 3:29 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] I have a hard time believing this is really a problem, at least as described in the article.The article says as an example that when purchasing web server software, the law requires the government to solicit bids. Since there is no Apache, Inc., there is no one from whom to solicit a bid. But ANYBODY can sell them Apache. If this is really a problem, then why aren't there dozens of companies that exist for the sole purpose of bidding on government contracts with free software? It would not be hard to be the low bidder when you don't have to write or buy the software. I know that in other industries, there are frequently companies that exist only as a pipeline between a government and a supplier who doesn't meet the government's supplier guidelines.
Yes it is be a problem, but not forever Posted Mar 24, 2003 18:25 UTC (Mon) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054) [Link] Having had a glimpse into the maw of a government (U.S. Federal) purchasing process, I can well believe it. In another life, another company I worked for was selling telecomm equipment to the military. One of the classic ``sales'' mechanisms was to have representatives (our own salesmen and lobbyists, those of a main contractor for whom we were a sub, &c. &c.) in close contact with those writing the specifications for the acquisition. It's amazing what a help it can be if one of the requirements precisely matches a feature of your box, but isn't found on the competition's product. It also doesn't hurt if those contacts can infer (to put it politely) unannounced specifications in time for the development team to build them in. The whole process is inhabited by sharks and blood-suckers, all swimming in huge pools of money. These people have exactly zero interest in introducing a Free Software analogue into the competition. And if you're not close enough to that process to see its internals, you'll never even know it's going on. The cost to maintain the contacts and scan the announcements needed to even get into the game is a significant chunk of the price the feds pay to buy stuff. It will take an unusual individual or company to supply the infrastructure needed to sell Free Software into the government. It will come eventually, but only after the government is riddled with Free programs bought as expenses (instead of capital---much less paperwork, you know), and even the purchasing agents can no longer ignore its advantages. We won't see it happen in less than a decade. It will happen, but as a boss of mine was wont to observe, it's like standing on the dock pulling on a hawser of the Queen Mary---the thing can be moved, but it takes heroic persistence.
New Texas Bill Moves Software Acquisition Reform Forward (Linux Journal) Posted Mar 21, 2003 9:07 UTC (Fri) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] [quote]The GPL and LGPL permit software sale; indeed, software which may not be sold for a fee is not, by most definitions, free software (see, for instance, the X11R6.4 fiasco and near-fork). If free software was unsellable, how do you think the commercial Linux distributors make their money? [/quote] Indeed - this is the biggest complaint against SuSE - YaST and related stuff contains a "may not be sold for a fee" licence clause, and many people boycott SuSE for exactly this! Cheers,
|
|
||||||||||||