Am 03. Jul, 2002 schwätzte Trent Shipley so:
> You appear to be in a minority here. The majority are adopting a different
> approach.
>
> 1) No one qualified to provide a legal opinion has stated that it is illegal
> for Maricopa County to source from Microsoft.
The snippets we've seen provide a mechanism for debarment, but don't require
it, so you're correct on this point. It's an important point, too. As
citizens, however, we have the right to demand out tax dollars are not being
given to a felon. We can also demand our tax dollars aren't used to support
and protect a monopoly.
> 2) Assuming it *is* illegal to source from MS, the bureaucrats can simply
> get MS product from resellers.
Nope. I'm pretty certain that's wrong. The stuff George posted mentioned
that the county can't enter into contract with a person ( a corp is a type
of person ) who has been debarred. The EULA is a contract. Without agreeing
to the EULA you aren't allowed to use Microsoft's products. Even if they
changed it, you still need a license, which is a contract.
> 3) Assuming it is illegal and there is no legal way to evade the rule,
> forcing the County to follow the rule will be counter-productive in terms of
> both long-term relations with County IT and for PR.
Not necessarily. If the law requires them to not contract with felons, they
have no choice and may not sign a new contract. If the law allows them to
debar a felon, but doesn't require it, then we can still strongly request
that Microsoft be debarred.
I think getting the county to move to another vendor would be beneficial for
the county. It certainly will be in the medium and long term as Microsoft's
licensing practices are causing their customers more and more pain.
ciao,
der.hans
--
# https://www.LuftHans.com/
# Schließlich verteidigt Amerika Freiheit. Und Freiheit beginnt mit dem Wort.
# -- Gunter Grass
(text/plain)