An Xmas present for you to peruse, comment, and mull..

[Joshua Judson Rosen]

"Jon 'maddog' Hall" <maddog at li.org> writes:
>
> Seth,
> 
> Sorry for not replying sooner, but family duties at the holiday season
> had me hopping.
> 
> Here are some small comments:
> 
> Statement of Purpose and Findings, Section I (d):
> 
> "....and the monopoly conditions imposed by these suppliers"
> 
> remove the word "monopoly".  Closed source is closed source whether
> created by a monopoly or not.

I read that as a reference to the `monopoly' that a the owner
of a closed-source package is able to have on the integration and support
market for that package--it's not that the closed source is created *by*
a monopoly, but that the monopoly condition is created by the closed-source.
If the source is open, then there's a free market for integration
and support services (and, of course, those are engineering terms--
I'm not talking about `end-user tech support', which is something else
entirely).

I think I most recently heard Nina Paley talking about this,
though I don't have a specific reference handy; cf. Google,
`+"Nina Paley" +monopoly' :)

Actually, I do have these 2 cartoons to offer:

    http://mimiandeunice.com/2010/08/14/freetards/

    http://mimiandeunice.com/2010/08/13/free-as-in-free-markets/


That you read the same paragraph differently probably says something
bad about Seth's phrasing, though. Maybe if he can replace the
negative "monopoly" language with more upbeat "free market" text...?


> Section II (c):
> 
> Open Source does not "ensure interoperability through adherence to open,
> platform-neutral standards."  It is true that most open source
> developers strive for this, but "ensure"?

"open", for sure. "platform-neutral" and "standard"? Yeah, I wouldn't
call that "ensured" per se; you're ensured the *possibility* of that
(e.g.: `if it doesn't conform to a standard that you want it to,
 you can *make it* happen'). Can you sell that?

Maybe by "platform-neutral" Seth didn't mean "portable", but rather
"without a vested interest in the success of one platform over another"
("unbiased"?). It seems hard to read "platform-neutral" like that,
if at all. I'm not sure the `non-technical' in my house would be able
to make any sense out of the phrase whatsoever; and, actually,
I wonder if Seth meant "platform" to be interpreted in a *technological*
sense or in a *political* sense--and which way it's more likely to
be taken when it goes under review by the other elected officials.

> If you want to make "adherence to open, platform-neutral standards" as
> part of your definition of "Open Source" in 21-R:10 then this part is
> fine.

Only if it's also part of the definition of "Proprietary"....

It's not obvious to me that an Open-Source implementation of some weird
`standard' that's only supported by that one (open)  implementation
is inherently *any worse* than a proprietary implementation of some
weird `standard' that's only supported by that one (closed) implementation.

> Section 21-R:11, Section I.
> 
> I think you mean "Consider acquiring open source software products as an
> alternative to proprietary software products."  not "in addition to".

I think he means "do not prejudicially exclude OSS from consideration";
in addition to the DoD documents, cf. David Wheeler's write-up,
"Open Source Software IS Commercial Software":

    http://www.dwheeler.com/blog/2007/07/18/

    Years ago some people had the strange idea that OSS was prohibited
    in the DoD or U.S. federal government, even though there was no
    such prohibition.

Basically, there's historically been confusion over whether `OSS'
could qualify as `COTS'--due at least in part do our own community's
willingness to use "open" and "commercial" as opposing terms,
implying an equivalence between "OSS" and "non-commercial"
(where the latter term is actually pretty antithetical...).

A package's `OSS' status itself should not be counted as a *demerit*
that *lowers* the package's standing in consideration. If anything,
I'm sure we can agree that it should be counted as a *feature*
that *improves* the package's standing, but the target-audience
may or may not be primed for that yet.


> In this day of "cloud computing" do you want to extend this to
> "services" and not only "products"?  Shouldn't the "cloud" be "open"?
> 
> And shouldn't the data of New Hampshire citizens be under the control of
> the laws of New Hampshire and not the laws of wherever the heck Google
> is storing its data?

We actually have at least one law in that vein, as I recall;
the one of which I'm thinking was enacted last year (oops--
I mean "in 2009"!), after Massachusetts tried (again?) to
extend their jurisdiction over the state line:

    SENATE BILL 5

    AN ACT prohibiting retailers from disclosing private
    customer information to foreign states in connection
    with the collection of certain sales and use taxes.

cf.: http://www.nhliberty.org/bills/view/2009/SB5

Also, cf. the MA Department of Revenue's reaction...:

    http://revenue.blog.state.ma.us/blog/2009/07/another-point-of-view-on-town-fair-tire.html


It'd certainly be nice to know that the NH government itself
was abiding by the spirit of that law.

> Finally, it would be nice if the money spent on integratwing and
> maintaining these software acquisitions be spent with New Hampshire
> companies and New Hampshire integrators.

My thoughts exactly--if I wasn't clear, that's what I meant to say, earlier :)

> We don't need to ship the money out of state.  There is only so much
> Maple syrup that Bill can eat.

Especially when NH has resident tech experts who are going out-of-state
to do that very job in question? I wonder how much of our economy
is spending its work-day down in MA. I, for one, really would prefer
to be working here in my home state; I bet the NH counterparts
to the businesses I currently frequent in MA would prefer me
to work near them instead, too ;)

-- 
"Don't be afraid to ask (λf.((λx.xx) (λr.f(rr))))."