The Australian is again reporting on various attempts to pass bills mandating open source software (this link will work for a few days.)
The meat of the proposed South Australian bill is this wording:
A public authority must, in making a decision about the procurement of computer software for its operations, have regard to the principle that, wherever practicable, a public authority should use open source software in preference to proprietary software.
Predictably, Microsoft is opposed to this bill, and gives many emotionally-charged counter arguments via its public relations consultants. The worst of these arguments would have to be that such a bill would “limit choice”.
If “limiting choice” is so evil, why isn’t Microsoft kicking up a fuss every time a government tender goes out asking for systems to be compatible with Word or Excel file formats?
Of itself, “limiting choice” is neither good nor bad. Organisations do it all the time, in matters as diverse as exclusive agreements with courier companies, setting performance goals for sales executives and requiring that all company helicopter travel be pre-approved by the board.
If the South Australian government decides the benefits of a pro-Open Source policy are so pervasive and worthwhile that they should legislate it, then that is what they should do. It is equivalent to a company putting a pro-Open Source policy into its company articles—a bit strange, but hardly protectionist1 and certainly not anti-free-world.
linuxsa.org.au is tracking the progress of the bill.
1 To large U.S. companies who preach the wonder of free trade to governments of the world I say, “Bah! Come back when George W. Bush stops protecting US agriculture.” In case anybody thinks the US is a capiltalist country, I direct them to the EWG Farm Subsidy Database.
Comments