[NTLUG:Discuss] Ways to improve on last session's SB1579.

[Paul Elliott]

Last Session SB1579 was introduced to the State senate but did not
pass.

SB1578 original version from last session:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlo/78R/billtext/SB01579I.HTM


I have written some improvements to SB1579:
http://www.io.com/~pelliott/sb1579/varriants.html

The first modification,
http://www.io.com/~pelliott/sb1579/SB01579lic.html

accounts for the fact that software is usually licensed and usually
not purchased. I believe that without this change an SB1579 like bill
could be meaningless. The "We are not acquiring software, we are buying
licenses, therefore the requirements in SB1579 don't apply" excuse. How
realistic is this? The assumption that the State buys software, rather
than licenses seems to be all over the government code. Is this a
mistake or could it be deliberate in some lawyer's obscure
machinations? Any thoughts on this are appreciated. Thank you.

The second modification,
http://www.io.com/~pelliott/sb1579/SB01579prop.html

encourages that state to escape from EXISTING proprietary lockin.


SB1579 as it was written encourages the state to use open source
software.

        (b) For all new software acquisitions and software license
        acquisitions, a state agency shall:

              (1) consider acquiring open source software products and
              open source software product licenses, in addition to
              proprietary software products and proprietary software
              product licenses;

              (2) except as provided by Subdivisions (4) and (5),
              acquire software products and software product
              licenses primarily on a value-for-money basis;

              (3) provide justification whenever a proprietary
              software product or proprietary software product
              license is acquired instead of open source software
              and its license;

              (4) avoid the acquisition of products or the licenses
              for products that do not comply with open standards
              for interoperability or data storage; and

              (5) avoid the acquisition of products or the licenses
              of products that are known to make unauthorized
              transfers of information to, or permit unauthorized
              control of or modification to the state government's
              computer systems by, parties outside the control of
              the state government.


Existing proprietary lockin could be used as an excuse for continuing
to purchase only proprietary software. How? Making a requirement that
the new software be compatible with the old. This modification
attempts to get around that. Please comment. Please find flaws
and errors. Thank You.



Can anyone draft a provision that would require the state to
keep track of existing licenses and software so that the State
can not be double dinged by a SPA software audit?



Thank You for your help.





-- 
Paul Elliott                       1(512)837-1096
pelliott at io.com                    PMB 181, 11900 Metric Blvd Suite J
http://www.io.com/~pelliott/pme/   Austin TX 78758-3117