> I think that you have a good point to make about "Linux In Governments."
The topic of GNU/Linux, and free software in general, in government is
something I've been thinking about.
Given the steep increase in prices for Win2000, especially in the server
editions, the idea of using free software makes more and more sense. This
should be especially true when it's being paid for by taxpayer dollars.
Does anyone know of any governmental agencies/entities which mandate
adoption (or even consideration) of free software in decisions where a
functional equivalent to commercial software exists?
In one job I wrote into policy that the organization would be biased
towards free software when a functional equivalent existed in both the free
and commercial realms (this was an educational organization so there were
other factors at work too). I've recently seen state orgs blatantly pirate
software which had free software equivalents. This is not only
illegal/unethical, but just plain stupid.
If you think of the money which government could save by just making sane
equivalent choices and it would add up in the long term. It would seem to
me that mandating the examination of equivalent free software would only be
common sense.
Would this be an issue for GNHLUG or some body to tackle? What would be
the feasibility of raising such an issue?
--
Regards, | "A contribution by Microsoft Corporation to South Carolina's
. | Republican Party during the 1998 campaign preceded a decision
Randy | by the state's GOP attorney general to withdraw from an
| antitrust suit against the computer software giant."
| Source: API, 24 December 1998
