Alex Hudson wrote: [on preference laws]
Personally, I'm pretty much against them: you can't argue coherently and simultaneously against the preference given to other platforms and for a preference given to free software*; the basic principle is the same and people will smell hypocrisy.
I'm not convinced by preference laws, but I don't think they're hypocrisy. It is possible to argue coherently that free software should be preferred because the four freedoms are vital in achieving better government:-
It has been demonstrated time and time again that it is not possible to completely privatise the machinery of government and simultaneously hold it completely democractically accountable. It is necessary to realise that non-free software in government is as much of a black box system as an outsourced service. In most places, some services of government are not allowed to be outsourced. So equally, some software used by government should not be allowed to be proprietary.
Isn't this why the US has some requirement for government works to be outside copyright restrictions? If it's even accepted there...
[...]
*. People love to fall back on "oh, free software is different because it's ethical and stuff", but it's a poor argument.
Actually, it's a strawman that I doubt anyone would make. I'd prefer to argue "free software is ethical because ...".
For some, the ethics of public spending is you do as little as possible and get best value possible: reducing it to an "ethical" argument fails because not everyone's ethics are the same.
No, maybe not everyone's, but maybe there are enough with common ethics to carry the argument - and isn't that what matters? I suspect we're never going to please Bill Gates with a free software preference law.
BTW, disappointed by this spamsig:
This message was scanned by Better Hosted and is believed to be clean.
Regards,