Response to the Federal govt RFI

[Evan Leibovitch]

Mike Kallies wrote:
> I think after you describe this item, there's  not much point in
> answering their other questions.
Well, where I could, I repeatedly made the distinction and referred back 
to the original point.

> They need to understand the difference, else they'll cherry-pick facts from your response to suit
> whatever agenda they like such as:
>   
> "...we have serious concerns about the limitations, often hidden,
> within free-proprietary software...."
>
> You know how people read these things.
>   
I have no problem with them picking out that quote, because it's true. I 
would prefer them to avoid the category completely than to mix the two 
(open source and free-proprietary) interchangably. In the original RFI 
they deliberately combine the two and I made the point that this is a 
mistake, That does not mean the other questions cannot be answered in 
relation to open source.


> On a side note, it disturbs me that they're talking about this stuff like they're talking about a vendor.
That's what they know and understand and have always done. Part of the 
purpose of the RFI (and part of my answer) requires that we tell them 
that FOSS projects can't be treated as vendors and that the conventional 
vendor/VAR relationship doesn't apply.

> They should be looking at it as participating in the community... which is what government should be doing.
>   
Then that is what the RFI should be advising.

I'll be satisfied if the feds start by simply supporting FOSS support 
orgs who themselves are part of the community. This is a major culture 
shift that can't happen overnight.

- Evan
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists