Re: looks like it's happening everywhere but the US.

[email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 12:32:38PM -0500, Tom Adelstein wrote:
> 
>>[email protected] wrote:
>> > the nature of
>> > our democracy makes it very unlikely and even illegal to enact
>> > laws that prohibit open access to bidding for government work
>>
>>
>>Please forgive me in advance for contradicting you. I wrote a paper 
>>about this http://governmentforge.org/archives/000064.html
>>
>>and felt I clearly established that the nature of our democracy would 
>>encourage such laws.
> 
> 
> You misunderstood. I'm saying that the US is moving to Open Source, but
> that we can't enact laws that prohibit specific vendors from competing
> to do the work for the government.
> 
> In order to disagree with me you would have to be saying that Americans
> can enact laws that prohibit a specific vendor from competing for work.
> 
> Is that what your saying?   Otherwise - I think we actually agree.
> 
> Its certainly legal to publish certain requirements that all vendors
> have to meet.  This doesn't disqualify anyone.  They can choose not to
> meet those requiremensts and therefore choose not to bid for the work.
> 
> 
> 
>>Democracy and capitalism are not coupled in any way. In fact, most of 
>>the current laws and regulations related to the DMCA have constitutional 
>>deficiencies.
>>
>>I spoke with members of the Texas senate within the last two weeks and 
>>we're encouraged by the Massachusetts policy statement. We plan to put 
>>our Open Source mandate into law.
> 
> 
> Great - Excellent - more proof that the US is also moving towards OSS.
> 
> 
>>from: http://www.cioupdate.com/trends/article.php/2237451
> 
> 
> 

 > You misunderstood. I'm saying that the US is moving to Open Source, > 
 > but
 > that we can't enact laws that prohibit specific vendors from competing
 > to do the work for the government.


I understood what you are saying and I assert that we can prohibit 
specific vendors from competing to do work for the government and in 
fact do it everyday. We can even do away with competitive bidding.

The misunderstanding that seems universal in the software community is 
that our government(s) must obey the laws of commerce. That is one 
mistaken certainty.

The government has no obligation to "level the playing field". Federal 
Acquistion Regulations (FARs) are interpretations promulgated to to 
provide government procurement officers with guidelines. A court could 
wipe them all out with the use of a pen. But they work for the most part 
and they establish guidelines that prohibit many vendors from competing 
for government work.

In fact, the General Service Administration has moved to Open Source 
Software and is holding trainings to educate procurement officers 
through the country on how to acquire Open Source Software for Federal 
Agencies.

Our last Texas bill, SB 1579 aimed to amend the state's acquistion 
procedures to include OSS in the competitive bidding process. The next 
round might aim to eliminate competitive bidding when OSS exists.

SO, yes. We can enact and unenact laws and choose to exclude vendors.

Another point, I don't think the US is moving toward OSS also - like 
other countries - but instead my research indicates we've been their 
before anyone else. Certainly Richard Stallman was the first one doing 
it and before him, DARPANET and ARPANET (now the Internet) passed OSS 
around as early as the 1960's.

I don't want to seem argumentative, but "other countries" aren't the 
reference point.