Community commentary: Encouraging open code in public procurement policies

[Warren Togami]

Two things:
1. Businesses looking for solution providers don't care.  Many of the
traditionalists in fact are AFRAID of the "free software" lingo.  You just
can't take that approach in a sales pitch.
2. Ximian sells a proprietary Exchange server connector for their Evolution
groupware.  theKompany releases tons of free libraries and programs,
financially supported by their excellent low cost commercial versions.  IBM
spends millions of dollars in supporting open source projects.  HP just
released their HPIJS printing drivers under a free license (removing the
HP-printer only clause).  Their framework is very nice, and it will be a
great platform which even other printer brands can build open source drivers
upon.

None of these companies are open source advocates?

Regarding Public Funded Science, yes I agree that the intellectual property
generated in public funded science should be made public domain.  The
current situation with schools having entire departments for patenting and
royalty collections is rediculous.

----- Original Message -----
From: <cpaul at telemetrybox.org>
To: "Linux & Unix Advocates & Users" <luau at list.luau.hi.net>
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2002 10:43 AM
Subject: [luau] Re: Community commentary: Encouraging open code in public
procurement policies


> Yes, but once you start pushing proprietary solutions you no longer have
the right to call yourself an open-source or free software advocate.  You
become just another "solutions provider."
>
>