[kevkrom]

And what about IP ownership and trade secrets? Does that fly out the window because you want the source code?

IP ownership can be maintained by using an appropriate license, as can non-disclosure on trade secrets. If I were managing an IT department, I would not want to make a major investment in any software where I couldn't view or modify the source code; whether that's one of the "free" licenses, or a deal with a proprietary vendor is irrelevant. As the purchaser, that's my choice, and I have every right to make it -- vendors of proprietary systems that don't cooperate simply won't sell any units to me.

[Bush2000]

IP ownership can be maintained by using an appropriate license, as can non-disclosure on trade secrets.

You've gotta be kidding, man. A trade secret is no longer a trade secret when you reveal it. It's like Coca-Cola handing out its formula for Coke. It has the weakest form of protection under IP law. Once it's known, there's no putting the genie back in the bottle; hence, the reason that courts generally don't force companies to reveal their trade secrets.

If I were managing an IT department, I would not want to make a major investment in any software where I couldn't view or modify the source code; whether that's one of the "free" licenses, or a deal with a proprietary vendor is irrelevant.

Right, because you're an open source advocate -- and that's your right. But government shouldn't be giving preference to open source software. That will serve only one purpose: It will artificially suppress the market for commercial software.

As the purchaser, that's my choice, and I have every right to make it -- vendors of proprietary systems that don't cooperate simply won't sell any units to me.

Of course it's your choice. But the point of this article isn't individual choice -- but government fiat.