[Golden Eagle]

You don't need a bill number when an executive branch passes an order demanding something. And in this case, it's demanding something that's unproven and contrary to industry standards.

[ShadowAce]

You don't need a bill number when an executive branch passes an order demanding something.

Then it's not a law. Quit pretending it is.

Also from your very own article :

Not so, said Kriss. The state will still buy closed-source software when it's best for the job. But it will make an effort to find good open-source substitutes. Kriss can't understand Pacheco's problem with the plan.

",b>Everybody I've spent time with in the technical community thinks it's terrific," he said.

[Still Thinking]

I think ShadowAce's beef with you using the term "laws" is that laws usually constrain the actions of those outside the government. So when you say they are "passing laws" against Windows, Office, etc., it can sound as if they are restricting the legal rights of Mass citizens with regard to their software choices. What they're doing is simply choosing what to do with their software dollars the same as any individual or company has the right and ability to do. They're not improperly leveraging government authority against a specific entity, which is what someone reading your posts might conclude.

[Publius6961]

You just shot yourself in the other foot. Bottom line, it's no more a "law" when a state's executuve branch makes a choice than it is when the executuve department of any large company does so.

It's not a lwa. Find another approach to your MS kiting.