BSA Claims Open Standards Will Increase Costs
from the bsa-fud dept
The Business Software Alliance (BSA), an organization that has never shied away from pushing as much FUD as possible to protect its main backers (proprietary software companies like Microsoft and Adobe), is at it again. Just a few months ago it sent a letter to European politicians that didn't even pass the laugh test, making claims like "royalty free" software meant that it was "non-commercial." Its latest is to warn the UK government what a grave mistake it would be to support open standards and royalty free software, bizarrely claiming this would "increase e-government costs." Yes, by using open standards and royalty free software, the BSA insists costs will go up. Why? Because it limits the market (i.e., keeps BSA's biggest supporters out of the deal). But, by that logic, going with a proprietary solution would almost certainly increase costs even more, by limiting potential suppliers down to an even smaller number who support that proprietary standard. A government's role in promoting openness means that it should absolutely support open standards and royalty free licensing. It's too bad the BSA refuses to recognize why that's true.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: fud, open standards, software
Companies: bsa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
(The preceding is a public service announcement on behalf of the Anonymous Cowards that are lurking around here. The above comments are not representative of the current poster, who went insane last week).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I know I have some schizophrenic tendencies but that is no reason to bash me at all.
I am telling ya, AC is a good guy in a Borg kind of way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fucking public interest
This outward expression of this love (not till you're married!) is called "fucking public interest." I know it sounds confusing and possibly a little gross, but when you grow up (and move out, etc.), you'll understand as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*Sigh*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: *Sigh*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Business idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hear that!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh god..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh god..
I think lack of floss can cause tooth decay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The stronger case can be made for FLOSS having longer duration in both reading those old files as well as retrieval of them.
There's no annual tax on Linux type stuff for the individual but likely there will be for the government. Still even if they have to pay it will be far cheaper than the software houses BSA will claim to represent.
Many governments are going FLOSS. Not to long ago, I read an article where Russia was going to it for education and possibly government too.
There's a lot to be said for better security in Linux as a default than there is in Windows as most every one runs admin to avoid the headache of re-logging in as admin to do installs. While much of the problem isn't just software but users too, it is far too easy to get malware with Windows as the prevalent majority is for Windows.
As long as Windows is getting is money from businesses that want access to it for datamining purposes and paying that annual fee, Windows will never be secure as it is a move against the income stream that provides them money.
You can be sure after the change up, BSA will be around checking computers looking for illegal software on machines. It's a typical practice after the changeover. Before the change over date, bunches of sales reps will be all over the place trying to make good deals if they don't go. One of the business that was changing over held the notification up they were changing till after the fact, just to keep the sales reps from wasting everyone's time with the continual and long visits. It appears that too is in the play book. Any way to hinder the changeover. If sweeteners don't work then they go the other route with the change over company losing it's favored status; meaning that if they go back there are no bargains but the full price of software.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Both "sides" seem silly to me.
In some cases one manner is going to provide the best return on investment and in other cases the other will. Yes, sometimes propitiatory software IS cheaper than OSS, when you measure expense by more variables than immediate license costs.
-DeAngelo
http://www.cheerthis.com -hassle free sharing and voting
http://www.SheenNation.com - hassle free sharing and voting of Sheen!
http://www.braincano.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Both "sides" seem silly to me.
With open standards both proprietary and OSS vendors can make software that meets the standard. This gives consumers and governments a wide range of software to choose from(contrary to the BSA's false claims) and in many cases helps promote innovation. Look how open standards allowed Internet to grow if you need an example.
When a government chooses to use a proprietary standard for documents(as an example) then said government is also choosing to force citizens to PURCHASE the proprietary software that supports that standard so they can communicate with the government.
Seems to me the BSA is simply trying to get governments to choose software that forces its citizens to then purchase said software that conveniently happens to be sold by BSA supporters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Both "sides" seem silly to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Both "sides" seem silly to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just a thought
Mens aren't theirs source revenue !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]