

Open-source bias alleged in European Commission planning document - ilamont
http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/07/06/open-source-bias-cheered-booed-planned-ec-rules-review

======
anigbrowl
Boo hoo. I am not that persuaded by the Association for Competitive
Technology's arguments, summarized here: [http://www.actonline.org/press-
releases/eu-interoperability-...](http://www.actonline.org/press-releases/eu-
interoperability-framework.html) and here: [http://www.actonline.org/press-
releases/eu-interoperability-...](http://www.actonline.org/press-releases/eu-
interoperability-framework.html) Their argument commingles free as in open
with free as in beer, resulting in much misplaced FUD. This immediately
devalued their credibility to me.

There is nothing bad about commercial software, but nor is there anything bad
about the idea that for very large scale IT implemented on behalf of the
public, government procurement should prefer open rather than proprietary
standards where feasible. If it's taxpayer funded, why should the taxpayer
have to pay a licensing fee to read the data whose collection was financed
with their taxes?

Somehow, I suspect that this organization would also be the among the first to
assert government is wasteful and doesn't spend tax revenues wisely.

