ZDNet News reports that a San Diego lawyer is drafting a law that would require all California government agencies to use open source software (Should government mandate open source?). InfoWorld has more information concerning the proposed new law (LinuxWorld: March will rally for open-source law). Apparently, although one assemblyman is interested, he has not yet signed on and would like to review the issue more. Additionally, a spokesman for the assemblyman says a law is more likely to be passed as test in a particular municipality, rather then as a state-wide effort.
This is part of a growing trend. Governments, such as Peru, are increasingly looking at open source software as a solution to a number of problems with proprietary software (such as expense and security). One response to this move towards government mandate has come from the extremely Microsoft-friendly Computer Technology Industry Association (CompTIA), which has created the Initiative for Software Choice. Call me cynical, but the "Initiative for Software Choice" sounds suspiciously like something that Microsoft tried to pull off in 1999, a fake grassroots (aka astroturf) campaign opposing antitrust action called "The Freedom to Innovate Network" (The Freedom to Innovate Network - an 'Astroturf' Organisation). Open source guru Bruce Perens deconstructs the Initiative for Software Choice in The Register (MS 'Software Choice' scheme a clever fraud). He also proposes a counter initiative for Sincere Choice. Slashdot readers comment on both the soon-to-be proposed California law and Perens' dissection of "Software Choice" (MS "Software Choice" Campaign: A Clever Fraud).
I don't agree that mandating open source is the proper path. I do think that Perens has it right in his "Sincere Choice" initiative. Governments shouldn't mandate open source, but should mandate open standards (without licensing fees or discrimination) and interoperability.