The potential contract, which would run for five years and be worth €147m, has been questioned by several Dutch MPs who say it contravenes the Dutch government's policy on open-source software. It also appears to have been awarded without the Dutch government offering it for public tender, Dutch magazine Webwereld reported last week.
MPs from three opposition parties and from one of the three parties in Holland's coalition government are unhappy about the deal and are reported to have questioned three ministers about the deal.
A Microsoft spokesman confirmed that Microsoft is currently in negotiation with the Dutch government, but was unable to give any further details on the deal. He said that the ministers are expected to answer the questions by Thursday this week.
The Dutch government is a coalition between three parties -- the Christian Democrats, the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) and a small Democrat party (D66). MPs from D66, the Labour, Green and Socialist parties (PvdA, Groen Links and SP) reportedly questioned the ministers of defence, home affairs and justice about the potential deal.
The MPs asked how this deal could be in agreement with the parliament's previous decision to move the whole government to open source and open standards by 2006. This decision, initially proposed in a motion by Green Party MP Kees Vendrik, was unanimously passed by the Dutch parliament in 2002.
The ministers were also asked whether the government had released a public tender for this contract, which is a requirement for projects that cost €236,000 or more.
Since the initial protest from MPs, a number of organisations including the Dutch Linux Users Group and OpenOffice.org have sent a signed letter to the Dutch prime minister and finance minister stating that the Microsoft contract will have a negative impact on the software market in the Netherlands. Web site Slashdot has published an English translation of this letter.
This is the latest in a string of Microsoft government deals to evoke controversy. Its reported $3.6m contract to supply Beijing's municipal government was later cancelled. When Microsoft won a £500m NHS contract, numerous ZDNet UK readers criticised the government for its decision.
Talkback
With the EU having declared Microsoft a monopoly, it's rather obvious that someone got a pay off. Sadaam Gates may have worked this deal.
Why follow the rules if that doesn't lead to results? The only real punishment is that someone else gets the deal. And someone else gets the sugar trips to who knows what.
Guided by that fact of life many commercial companies, decision makers and wannabee IT professionals are pushing for their own bottom line. Not hindered by experience, skill, understanding and realistic personal risks all sorts of IT projects are started without beginning, without end and without a clue (certainly not in those areas where annoying little details like formal rules of engagement, privacy laws, truthfull and complete business cases, civil rights, etc are involved because that would only slow things down). Objections against such conduct are waived away by the same people who will only gain from doing so and started such problems in the first place. The price to be payed later on is ofcourse "the next manager's problem". Or should I say: the tax paying civilian with then limited rights?
Not so long ago the Dutch parlement started an investigation involving nation wide fraud by construction companies. Artifical pricing, inflated pricing, under the table deals, self enrichment, consequent breaching of various laws, lobbying all over the place, etc. Basicly all the drawbacks of allowing a huge monopolist to do things their way. And as a result resulting in many people willing to be part of that game (and protecting it). The resulting cleaning up afterwards will take many years, many tax dollars and many unemployed.
It's time to look at least 10 years ahead. Not just one or two. And perhaps think about who wants software patents and why. And who doesn't want liability and why. And who wants more digital powers and why. And who wants.... etc etc.
Governments build roads, bridges, railways, power grids, water ways, hospitals, TV networks, airports, etc. Large scale capital goods that are a must and for everybody. Software has entered that category. So why not also software? There is something wrong with allowing entire government infrastructures to be so dependent on a few business vendors and so much in particular on just one - MS. I'd love to see the governments of Europe gang together to somehow help spawn an enterprise for establishing an alternative to MS. Similar to how the Concorde, Airbus, the Channel tunnel, etc. came about. Similar to China's upcoming own version of Linux. I'm sure most wouldn't mind having 10-20 Euro's added to their tax bill for the purpose. Once established then such enterprise should manage on its own. Asis the market is impenetrable.