"Proposed Software Monopoly" Press Release

Thu Oct 2 13:45:58 EDT 2003

To whom it may concern,

As a citizen and registered voter in the 37th Middlesex District of
Massachusetts, I find the Council for Citizens Against Goverment Waste
press release of 30 September, 2003 (available here: 

	http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_NewsRelease_09302003b )

to be frought with mis-understanding, mis-information, and 
mis-leading intentions.  The CAGW has completely mis-represented 
Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney's proposal, which actually states:

    In technology, we will adopt open standards to make systems more
    interoperable, and open source software, when available, to reduce
    licensing, programming and maintenance costs.
    (http://mass.gov/agency/documents/eoaf/The_Capital_Budget.pdf)

And Eric Kriss, State Secretary of Administration and Finance is 
quoted in a CNET article as re-iterating this stance here:

    "The state will also give preference to open-source software,
     although it will continue to purchase proprietary products if
     they are found to be superior technologically or otherwise..."
     (http://news.com.com/2100-7344-5084442.html)

In your press release, you claim that Massachusetts CIO Peter
Quinn states an intention to "move all state and local government
computers to open-source operating systems."  Yet you cite no source
for this supposed claim, which in fact, is completely wrong.  More 
over, a search of the World Wide Web for this supposed quote 
turns only the CAGW Press Release at PR Newswire
(http://news.corporate.findlaw.com/prnewswire/20030930/30sep2003162722.html)
in which the CAGW is cited for the source of this information.  This 
makes it appear as the CAGW is really putting words in the mouths of 
politicians to further it's own agenda!

According CNET (http://news.com.com/2100-7344-5084442.html) , the
policy "will give preference to open-source software and products that
adhere to open standards" to ensure that, as Eric Kriss is quoted as
saying, "what we build is interoperable and interchangeable, so that
different applications can use the same data, so we won't have to be
constantly reinventing and rethinking basic functionality." 

CAGW President Tom Schatz is also quoted as saying, "People mistakenly
refer to Linux as 'free' software because it can be freely altered and
distributed."  I fail to understand why exactly people are mistaken in
referring to Linux as 'free' in this way, when it is so clearly stated
in the license under which Linux is distributed, the GNU General
Public License, that:

   - ...the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your
     freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software
     is free for all its users.

  -  When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price.

  - Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
    have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
    this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it
    if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it
    in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.

I fail to understand how Mr. Schatz could make a claim that these 
people are mistaken in this belief, when in fact, this belief is one 
hundred percent accurate?

Mr. Schatz continues on to claim that, "Yet while the software itself
is free, the cost to maintain and upgrade it can become very
expensive".  Yet there are no references to studies, statistics, or 
even anecdotes provided to back up this claim.  As an IT professional 
for more than 10 years, I'm quite curious to know Mr. Schatz's 
qualifications to make such claims.  Especially considering that 
during my carreer I have saved many companies many thousands if not 
millions of dollars by using Free and Open Source Software.  This 
savings was not experienced solely in the lack of up-front financial 
investment in the software, though that obviously contributed.  
Rather, the cost savings were experienced in the lack of annual 
licensing costs, lack of annual support contracts, and lack of 
continually forced and unnecessary software upgrades.

Mr. Schatz does however, make two claims I completely agree with:

    - the best policy on the use of software is to place all products
      on equal footing.
    - It is critical that taxpayers receive the best quality programs
      at the least cost.

And in fact, I believe that the Massachusetts policy does exactly 
this.  First, they insist that any software purchase requires
the software comply to open standards and that the data can be 
easily accessed by means other than through the software which 
created the data.  Second, it finally puts Free and Open Software 
on equal footing with commercial and proprietary software vendors.  
Prior to this policy, only software sold by state approved vendors 
could be considered for purchase.  This effectively eliminated Free 
and Open Source Software from official use within state and local 
government.  This policy puts all software on equal footing by 
mandating quality as the primary factor in purchase decisions.  If 
commercial and proprietary software vendors can not compete based on 
the quality of their software, I do not want that software used in my 
government, nor do I want my tax dollars spent to procure it.

Mr. Schatz continues on with statements such as, "Maintenance,
training and support are far more expensive with open source than
proprietary software."  Yet again, fails to provide any data points to 
back up this position.  And again, I cite my decade of experience 
proving exactly the opposite.

Mr. Schatz also claims that, "Massachusetts is proving itself the most
technologically inept state in the nation."  Which I find quite
amazing and ludicrous, considering that Massachusetts is home to many
of the people, companies, and educational institutions which helped
create, and continue to further the underlying technologies of what we
now know as the Internet.  Is Mr. Schatz aware that all of these
technologies are also Free and Open Source Software, and that without
Free and Open Source software, the Internet and everything we have
come to enjoy about it would not exist in the way we know and
appreciate it today?

If Mr. Schatz and the CAGW are truly looking out for Fraud, Waste, 
and Abuse of tax payer monies, they would be heralding this policy of 
enlightenment, and praising Governor Romney for such an insightful 
policy.  And if Mr. Schatz and the CAGW really felt that the use of 
Free and Open Source Software was more costly to the tax payer for
all the reasons cited in the mis-leading press release, then the 
CAGW's own web site would not be running Free and Open Source 
Software such as:

    - FreeBSD
    - Apache/1.3.12 (Unix)
    - mod_ssl/2.6.5
    - OpenSSL/0.9.6e
    - ApacheJServ/1.1.2
    - mod_fastcgi/2.2.10

And, CAGW would not have moved to all this Free and Open Source 
Software from the combination of IRIX, PapidSite, and FrontPage which 
was used prior to 19 April 2002 when CAGW moved their hosting 
services from Verio to Convio ( all this data freely available at
http://www.netcraft.com).

In short, I find the press release, Mr. Schatz, and the CAGW at best, 
completely ignorant and mis-informed about technology in general, and 
Free and Open Software in specific.  At worst, I find them to be 
hypocritical, disingenuous, deceitful, and exemplary of the exact 
type of politicians they would have me believe they are attempting to 
protect me from.

Finally, in closing, I would like some explanation as to why the CAGW
is against a policy which:

   - saves tax payer money immediately by using higher quality software
     at a lower cost
   - saves tax payer money over the long term by requiring standards-compliant,
     interoperable data formats which prevent costly data migrations 
     in the future as applications and systems change.
   - provide an avenue to purchase commercial software when there is 
     no other alternative, or it's superiority is obvious
   - keeps state and local tax payer dollars local by allowing
     state and local governments to hire local Open Source experts 
     for support rather than send this money out of state to commercial 
     software companies

The Governor, his team, the House, and Senate, all have my complete
support for this policy, and I await some explanation from Mr. 
Schatz and the CAGW as to why it is acting and speaking in ways 
completely hypocritical to it's agenda of trying to save tax payer 
monies.

Thank you.
Sincerely,
-- 
Paul Lussier
		 Principal Systems and Network Engineer

     Co-Chairman, Greater New Hampshire Linux User's Group (GNHLUG)
			http://www.gnhlug.org
	   Events: http://www.gnhlug.org/lug_cal/month.php