wish i had a clue stick to smack buffet upside the head!

[Kush]

This is corruption thru bribing. Only nobody says it that way. They call 
it smart marketing.

The same is the case with MS providing ( free with a hidden agenda) 
software to educational institutions and libraries in Canada now to tie 
up the next generation into using its products and not opt for open source.

Kush

Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> If MS or B&G donates to a cause, the software used in the delivery of 
> that cause is usually Microsoft because it's donated as part of the 
> charitable contribution. (It's also cheaper to provide $X worth of 
> software than $X worth of cash.) Use of MS software then tends to 
> spread through the recipient organization, beyond the specific program 
> being funded, for matters of simplicity. There is not to my knowledge 
> any contractual demand that MS be used exclusively; however, orgs that 
> receive such benefit are unwilling to do _anything_ that might be 
> perceived to annoy or upset their benefactor. Combine this with the 
> fact that there is often fierce competition amongst orgs who want the 
> money.
>
> As a result, even orgs who are inclined to support open source have a 
> double disincentive to use it anywhere in their organization. The 
> availability of (legal) free Microsoft software, together with a 
> well-known (and largely accurate) perception that Microsoft and Gates 
> don't like open source leads to a self-imposed (rather than explicitly 
> forced) embargo. The donors get to say that they do nothing to prevent 
> their recipient orgs from using open source, yet none gets used.
>
> This problem is nothing new, and predates the creation of the B&MG 
> initiative. I first encountered it within the United Nations 
> Development Program. In 2003, the UNDP was quite open source friendly, 
> and started a special open source lab and program:
> http://www.apdip.net/projects/2003/iosn
> In 2004 Microsoft signed a deal with the UNDP offering $1B of support. 
> While a lot of that support was in the form of contributed software 
> licenses and forgiven piracy, there were also a good amount of 
> computers and cash involved.
> http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2004/Jan04/01-23WorldEconomicForumPR.mspx 
>
> Almost overnight, support for open source within the UNDP worldwide 
> evaporated, without a single formal request coming from Microsoft. The 
> IOSN project was maintained, but appeared to evolve into something of 
> a rogue. It's certainly underfunded, succeeds largely on the sheer 
> willpower of its people, and has been moved from Malaysia (which has a 
> very active and government-supported open source movement) to Thailand 
> (in which there is some activity but nowhere near like Malaysia's).
>
> In other words, I'm fairly certain that there is no formalized 
> required abandonment of open source by orgs receiving Microsoft or 
> Gates money. They don't need one. There is certainly an inferred and 
> assumed dislike of open source, and people don't want to risk the 
> patronage.
>
> While of course it would be hugely bad press if the foundation were to 
> cut off funds from an org using open source, that will never happen. 
> Methods of coercion can be subtle enough to be essentially unprovable.
>
> - 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