Dear Mr Griffith While I appreciate the demands placed upon IT Managers in the public sector, creation of a super-deal with Microsoft does not solve the problem of software licencing costs. Any deal struck will be under the new Microsoft-focused annual licence scheme and will therefore require renewal in the medium term, moving yet further amounts of taxpayers money away from the provision of best value public services into the coffers of an already rich corporation. It seems to me that if SOCITM wants to assist its members and the public services they support, then it should be assisting its members in implementing any lower cost alternatives that exist, rather than perpetuating the pay per licence myth. Such a move on the part of public services en masse would result in more money being available to remunerate the IT Staff at a more realistic level, while simultaneously providing more money to be invested in the hardware infrastructure, resulting in faster, more reliable information flow both internally and from the public services to their stakeholders. Regards Chris Puttick -----Original Message----- From: Bob Griffith To: Chris Puttick Sent: 11/23/01 10:10 PM Subject: Re: MS licencing Dear Mr Puttick, Our Members are faced with a demand from Microsoft and if SOCITM takes no action then substantial sums will be paid from the public purse. SOCITM is therefore taking action to try to reduce the amounts paid to Microsoft by our members under their licensing arrangements to which they are committed. Any proposals made by SOCITM will be completely legal. Bob Griffith National Secretary www.socitm.gov.uk http://www.socitm.gov.uk 01604 674800 ----- Original Message ----- From: Chris mailto:chris@centralmanclc.com Puttick To: 'bobg@socitm.gov.uk' mailto:'bobg@socitm.gov.uk' Cc: 'suse-linux-uk-schools@suse.com' mailto:'suse-linux-uk-schools@suse.com' Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 4:47 PM Subject: MS licencing Dear Sir With regard to the press release concerning global Microsoft licencing: any such deal would not only contravene public sector financial regulations regarding tendering for contracts, but would not be best value for UK tax and ratepayers. There are a number of effective alternatives to MS products in all areas, and many of these alternatives are available at minimal or no capital cost. Some even come with a licensing structure that allows unlimited use, which would eliminate IT administration cost associated with software audits. Further, many of the alternative products have performance and security advantages over their MS equivalents, lacking competitiveness only in the marketing departments. For a "professional association for ICT managers working in and for the public sector" to be promoting the hand-over of large amounts of taxpayers money to any company without due consideration for alternatives or the requirements of the public sector financial regulations is unacceptable. As a representative body you have a responsibility to be doing the exact opposite. I look forward to your response. Yours faithfully Chris Puttick IT Manager Central Manchester City Learning Centre