FOSS and the election

[Evan Leibovitch]

Tony Abou-Assaleh wrote:

>Is anyone here involved in some way with the Green Party? In particular, I'd like to know if they have specific facts to back up this policy. DRDC has conducted an extensive research on FOSS and made an 'informed' recommendation to all GOV departments to 'consider' using FOSS and commercial software alike, and choose what fits their needs (as opposed to considering only commercial software, which is what most departments tend to do).
>  
>
I'm not sure I get your point. They're expressing a political
philosophy, developed into a policy of what they would do. What do facts
have to do with it? ;-)


It's my understanding that the policy is based on the principal that
technology that is purchased with public funds be shared with the public
when possible. If the government spends money to program a database, why
shouldn't the code (though not the data) be available for public re-use?
Why should technology of any kind that is funded by public money be
hoarded at all when sharing is possible?

>One needs to keep in mind that Free in FOSS refers to choice and not cost.
>  
>
IMO that concept -- "free speech" versus "free beer" -- is generally
well understood here.

In fact, what needs to be kept in mind IMO that this is not about "FOSS
versus commercial software" as stated above. Red Hat and Novell and
Xandros (and of course many others) deliver FOSS which *is* commercial
software. It is very important to note that the distinction is not "FOSS
versus commercial", it's about "free versus _proprietary_" technology.
There is a difference, and it's significant.

>There is a cost associated with using FOSS, and in many cases it may exceed the costs of commercial software.
>

The first time, maybe. What about the second time? There is an
incredible amount of wheel-reinvention within the public service.
Consultants get one ministry to finance development of a system, only to
sell the same system back to another ministry with no cost savings. The
re-use of software possible by insisting upon open source offers huge
cost savings potential.

Beyond that, choosing FOSS is also a public statement about the value of
sharing in the creation of a better society, and such choices are not
always the cheapest ones in the short term. After all, it's cheaper to
make buildings that are inaccessible to wheelchairs or without parkland
around. It's cheaper to hire menial labour without an imposed minimum
wage. And it's cheaper to burn garbage than to process it in other ways
-- yet in each case we choose the more "costly" path...

Going with FOSS can be (and usually is) a cost saving measure, but even
when not it offers other benefits.

I'm not with the Green Party, though the roots of the policy are pretty
easy to figure out.

- Evan
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml