[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
Would a government policy of transferring the license costs for the projected lifespan of a proprietary solution to be used in the implementation of an open source alternative be feasible, affordable, transparent and "fair" ? For a long time UK governments have resisted any policy that could be deemed as anti-competitive. To this end open-source solutions are locked out because of initial implementation costs involved in conversion, retraining etc. No party would wish to be seen as bias towards open source by handing out money, or being seen to be tipping the scales in any way. However, if the average savings in licensing costs of the competitors could be calculated and then transferred for initial implementation, training etc ... could this be considered to be anti-competitive ? Although initially no savings would have been made because the money would be used in implementation longer term savings would be made in terms of having gained experience in FLOSS technologies and practice, and longer term savings as the product is extended into the future. I'm sure this idea is flawed in some respect and as yet not fully thought out but I am intrigued by the idea. Any Comments ? Tom. -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html