man, 13 09 2010 kl. 11:32 +0100, skrev Alex Hudson:
On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 10:58 +0100, CiarĂ¡n O'Riordan wrote:
Possible connection, FWIW:
Bruce Perens also opposes pro-fs government policies: http://lwn.net/Articles/163077/ "I still think that preference laws are the wrong way to go. [...] I keep thinking that the end still doesn't justify the means."
This isn't a hugely uncommon point of view, though - I think you're possibly making a link too far.
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.
Ah, but you can.
You can say that proprietary software vendors will not let public entities control the software that runs in its infrastructure, and will not let them make necessary changes or enhancements themselves if the vendor is unwilling or unable to do so. It's not a question of hypocrisy, it is a demand for certain consumer rights.
Public entities should say: We are *completely willing* to buy Oracle or Microsoft or whatever, if that's the best and most cost-effective solution, but we *need* it under the equivalent of the GNU GPL, at least. If the vendors are unwilling to sell under these conditions, "preference" is not given to non-proprietary vendors, on the contrary, the proprietary vendors de-selected themselves.
br Carsten