Am 17. Jan, 2003 schw=E4tzte Craig White so:

> It's pretty certain that this is a go.
>
> I have a proposal - 3 pieces which I would like to share with anyone
> that has an interest in helping me get this through. I plan on sending
> this to the board of directors for their approval on Tuesday.

What Derek said about Free Software and Open Source. m$ is providing source
code to gov'ts. That doesn't necessarily give them permission to make fixes
and it sure doesn't help people at our level.

Page 1:

rather than saying most of these apps can be used on m$ as well, mention
that they're available in a variety of environments, e.g. on many OSen (
different flavors of *NIX including *BSD, m$, maybe OS X ), via hosting
companies ( many/most? are running apache, php, etc. ) and via application
server model ( for instance, the andthengroup, which is hosting the PLUG
site, is doing this ( disclaimer, I'm helping build the andthengroup ) ).

It's good that you're making it a Free Software vs. proprietary software
debate.

Page 2:

talk to Derek of GNUe and David of andthemgroup about what's available for
these functions.

HIPPA: new m$ EULAs turns over to m$ the ability to get on your computers
anytime they want with or without notice. To me this is outrageous. It seem=
s
to contradict the privacy issues inherent with private medical information.
Free Software, due to the nature of Free Software, can't have this type of
"we're coming in whenever we want" clause.

Page 3:

remind them that they're opening themselves up to unannounced 3rd party
audits due to new EULAs.

Also the new EULAs turn proprietary software into rentware. They can no
longer just use it until they're done.

"Whatever our considerations for the value of the software that we use, the
software companies rightfully are now asserting their control over how thei=
r
software is installed and used."

The 'rightfully are now asserting' makes it sound like it's a God given
right. It isn't. Software vendors don't have a particular right to boss us
around. Sure use outside a certain framework might void the warranty, but i=
t
if works for whatever purpose, we should be able to use it for that. The
only reason m$ can get away with these assertions are because their product=
s
are rentware and you don't actually buy them.

Also, Free Software doesn't put any limitations on use of the software.

"Whatever our considerations for the value of the software that we use, the
software companies are now asserting control over how their software is
installed and used."

That works better for me.

Maybe also point out some articles on BSA, but though it's the truth that
starts to look like a fear campaign. Maybe the link to the BSA site already
does this.

Bring up the fact that the proprietary formats can not only lock you in now=
,
but lock you in in the future, in other words relying on them is like a
permanent commitment to keep buying from the vendor.

Computers and the Internet are feats of engineering. The information
available are feats of communication. Engineering and communication depend
upon the use of standards. Proprietary disk and transport formats interfere
with engineering and communication.

Page 5:

using Free Software allows the most continuity because you and the code can
be augmented/replaced at *any* level.

Page 8:

maybe find ways that Free Software provides solutions not available in the
proprietary software world. For instance, while the GIMP replacement
Photoshop might be available it's probably beyond the NPOs budget.

ssh? strong VPN?

Any features in GPG, Mozilla, Konqueror, etc. not available in the prop
world?

Go over virtues and availability of LAMP ( GNU/Linux, Apache, Mozilla?, and
PHP ), the AMP part being available on multiple platforms.

Mention that one of the features Free Software doesn't have are all the
macro security holes in Outlook and IIS since they haven't been implemented=
=2E

ciao,

der.hans
--=20
#  https://www.LuftHans.com/    http://www.TOLISGroup.com/
#  Strangers are friends just waiting to happen!