Windows is supporting tech. There is no such requirement. Custom made software is not, and requirement should be for it. > this would effectively prohibit com

Windows is supporting tech. There is no such requirement. Custom made software is not, and requirement should be for it. > this would effectively prohibit companies who do proprietary work in the private sector to work with the government at the same time, because they'd be forced to open source their code. The company that does implementation work wouldn't be influenced IMO in any way whatsoever - they already have an active deal with gov, they are 100% on the topic, they have the best chance to offer quality support as they developed it etc. The other gov client who takes that software and does't pay development will pay support to the same company and additional development in majority of cases. First client could incorporate such changes without any additional price making entire ecosystem better. If third company now devotes its time to study, and improve the open code, so that they are now better at it then original company who developed it, then by all the logic they are the right team to continue with it. This effectually reduces lock in which is the major problem. Academia could research those open systems to look for bugs and other defects and provide stream of fresh minds already prepared to work on the gov systems. It looks like too good to be true IMO.