WebMink
Simon Phipps's personal commentary

Choice - Missing the point

The Massachusetts open technology decision is covered in CNet with a little more information. Why exactly do editors add misleading and wrong headlines to cover these articles? Do they want to prevent readers getting the real point? As John Lettice points out, the headline over the original article I cited used the phrase 'open source' without any cue from the text of the article, and this CNet story actually has a wrong headline as proprietary software has not been 'banned'. According to CNet,

The policy says in evaluating new technology purchases, the state will give preference to open-source software and products that adhere to open standards

Lettice also points out the ugly miss in the BSA's thinking. They obviously read the headline instead of the story and reacted to it. To re-iterate, all that's happening is that Massachusetts is preserving "the freedom to choose again". Companies that restrict that freedom will have to demonstrate a value that compensates for the failure to preserve choice. Nothing to complain about there, BSA. Unless, that is, you are in the pocket of someone who hates free choice.

Update:Some lobbyists (CAGW, who lobbied hard for states to stop suing Microsoft) seem to have fallen into the same trap of reading the headline and lashing out against open source (despite the fact their web site uses FreeBSD and Apache) - very prompt, I wonder why they are doing it? Or have CNet and AP both got it wrong?

posted at 11:54 PM (UK) | |