You would think an organization called the Initiative for Software Choice would be for software choice. But make no mistake about it, the ISC is all about quashing choice, and the choice it most wants to quash is open source.

The ISC's response to Mitre Corp.'s report--"Use of Free and Open-Source Software in the U.S. Department of Defense," which recommends that OSS (open-source software) be legitimized as an option to closed-source software (www.disa.mil/pao/dodfoss.html)--contends that closed-source solutions should hold sway over their OSS cousins. This is a fine example of rhetorical FUD (softwarechoice.org/download_files/MITRE.Final.Web.pdf).

The ISC claims Mitre is advocating preferential purchasing treatment for open- over closed-source software. But Mitre never says OSS should get preferential treatment. Mitre's position is clear: OSS is used in critical systems, and it should continue to be considered a viable option to closed source when its features serve program requirements.

ISC goes on to raise the specter of intellectual property rights. ISC wants you to believe you can't use closed-source software with OSS. In fact, ISC seems to say that in no way can a GPL program, and by extension an OSS program, use proprietary code without also releasing that proprietary code. That is not always true, however, as the GPL covers exceptions to this.

ISC missed the point that Mitre's recommendations are aimed at educating policy makers about the uses of OSS in the DoD, and these recommendations nicely sum up some of the benefits as well as the concerns of using OSS. ISC's contentions seem to be a case of stone throwing. In a footnote ISC states that Mitre has a financial interest in promoting OSS. What ISC doesn't say is that one of its members is Microsoft, which certainly has a vested interest in crushing OSS.