El uso del software libre en las administraciones públicas de la UE

73proposals around licensing.” He also gives some details of the deal that was struck:“We’ll be the first public-sector user to have a per-seat licensing cost which goes upand down as our inventory changes - something that is more important with peoplegetting into home working. And we can use the software products in anycombination - we don’t have to tie the software to a certain station.” In short, theproposal (it still has to be officially approved by the council) reduces costs andintroduces more flexible licensing. And by “building mainly around Microsoft [XP]for the immediate future”, Newham also gets the homogeneity it has been longing for(Techworld 24 enero 2004 67 ).Pero tan importante como las ventajas obtenidas son los criteriosutilizados:That comparison appeals to Steel, who is anxious to avoid the evangelical fervourthat can surround the open source versus proprietary software debate. "It is aboutbeing flexible, objective and cost-effective," he said. "We are trying to devise astrategy that is pragmatic in the short term and flexible in the long term"(Computerweekly.com 21 octubre 2003 68 ).“People are quite sensitive to small changes,” says Steel, foreseeing months of phonecalls from council workers trying to familiarise themselves with the basics of a newoperating system. There also remain some areas that open source simply hasn’tprovided the software for yet. When you add all these things together, he says, opensource starts to look less promising. “In the past, we have done the trailblazing, nowmaybe it’s time to let someone else take the risks” (Techworld.com 22 enero 2004 69 ).Los criterios de Steel coinciden con las recomendaciones delGovernment’s Open Source Software Policy tanto a nivel decontemplar alternativas como en lo relativo a la importancia de loscostes, o a recomendaciones anteriores en el sentido de mantenersea la espera ante posibles avances en el sector clientes. Elpragmatismo a corto plazo se ciñe a la mejor oferta en el mercado, yesta siempre la podrá ofrecer quien dispone de una situación de quasimonopolio y decide conceder condiciones excepcionales. Finalmentelas condiciones que consiguió Newham fueron más ventajosas que lasque Microsoft había firmado con la OGC en el 2002. En este caso laalternativa del código abierto sirvió como eficaz baza de negociaciónpara modificar las condiciones iniciales de Microsoft.El pragmatismo a corto plazo puede hipotecar, sin embargo, laflexibilidad a largo plazo. De la misma manera que los costes de TCOse duplicaban por la existencia de una infraestructura propietaria departida, la situación al final del contrato de diez años puede hacerinviable cualquier otra solución que no sea actualizar el software quese viene utilizando. En enero del 2004 Netproject publicó una nota enla que comentaba la decisión de Newham:Using Open Source would give the Council choice and would make sure that theywere not tied into proprietary protocols or operating systems. The use of OpenOffice