Fwd: [Ossi] New Hampshire requires consideration of open source
John Scott III
From: "jmw oss-institute.org" <j...@oss-institute.org>Date: February 6, 2012 5:58:08 PM ESTSubject: [Ossi] New Hampshire requires consideration of open sourceReply-To: j...@oss-institute.org
_______________________________________________very interesting story out regarding NH's new law requiring govt to consider open source:
New Hampshire: Open source, open standards, open data
by David A. Wheeler, 06 February 2012
from David Wheeler's Blog
The U.S. state of New Hampshire just passed act HB418 (2012), which requires state agencies to consider open source software, promotes the use of open data formats, and requires the commissioner of information technology (IT) to develop an open government data policy. Slashdot has a posted discussion about it. This looks really great, and it looks like a bill that other states might want to emulate. My congrats go to Seth Cohn (the primary author) and the many others who made this happen. In this post I’ll walk through some of its key points on open source software, open standards for data formats, and open government data.
To learn more, click the link below:
http://oss-institute.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=466:new-hampshire-requires-consideration-of-open-source&catid=1:news-a-updates&Itemid=274
Special thanks to OSSI advisory board member David Wheeler for his insight on this issue.
--
Ossi mailing list
Os...@oss-institute.org
http://oss-institute.org/mailman/listinfo/ossi_oss-institute.org
G. Andrew Stone
In addition, the Department anticipates additional costs which they are unable to quantify as they are dependent upon the nature of any open source software options that may be implemented. The Department states these costs will be influenced by such factors as the quantity of system review and testing necessary to validate features and functionality as well as the extent of coding changes that may be necessary to adapt open source software options to meet specific state business needs. These costs include:
• Agency personnel to define the business requirements and functionality and to test the viability of open source products.
• A Financial Manager to analyze the total cost of ownership of open source software solutions.
• Yearly security audits.
• Agency costs to provide training and support for open source software in the same manner that proprietary software is currently supported.
First of all, the costs seem to imply that "Yearly security audits","system review", "testing to validate features" are somehow exclusive to FOSS. But proprietary software is known to have a pretty poor track record with these very same things. http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/enterprise_apps/232300635
Secondly, the passage seems to ignore the existence of companies that provide these services for FOSS. I would have liked to see some clear indication that FOSS+paid support still beats similar cost proprietary. Personally, I'd even pay more for FOSS+paid support then proprietary (though I don't think the bill should go there because we are pretty cheap! :-)) because data freedom has great value.
Cheers!
Andrew
(Hollis, NH)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Military Open Source Software" Google Group.
To post to this group, send email to mil...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to mil-oss+u...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mil-oss?hl=en
www.mil-oss.org
