There seems to be somewhat of a misconception about what 'Open Source' actually means, it seems that some people think it is a single entity, or even the name of a company that gives away software for free or something along those lines.
Requiring software supplied to be open sourced is far from 'single sourceing', and is in fact quite the opposite. There woiuld be nothing barring any organisation - including M$ (however unlikely) - from picking up a copy of Linux of *BSD etc. and bidding to supply and/or support a product or service based on that.
Here is where the real advantage of open source arises, the original supplier;s charges begin to rise, so another organisation comes along and says 'we can see the source, we know how this works and we can support it for you for less' which would not be the case if it were a closed source proprietary package. The original supplier could then think, well we're not going to lose this contract, we'll cut our prices, or they walk away. Either way the taxpayer benefits as there is no proprietary lockin, and the supply and service of software becomes a truly open market
- which is presumably CAGW's goal?
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds