Scott McNealy (Credit: John Todd)

Scott McNealy, the Sun Microsystems co-founder and chairman, is legendary for his Microsoft jokes. But the Redmond company should probably take seriously what McNealy is saying these days -- at least considering the audience.

The BBC reports that the Obama administration has asked McNealy to prepare a paper on the subject of open-source software use by the government. And rest assured he isn't telling the new president that Linux or Java is a "giant hairball."

"It's intuitively obvious open source is more cost effective and productive than proprietary software," McNealy tells the BBC. "Open source does not require you to pay a penny to Microsoft or IBM or Oracle or any proprietary vendor any money."

That counters Microsoft's longstanding contention that the "total cost of ownership" of Windows is less, even though the initial purchase price is obviously much more. For example, the company cites studies suggesting that staffing, management and maintenance expenses make up 60 percent of the typical company's overall software costs. Microsoft says Windows is better suited.

However, the BBC reports that McNealy "wants to ensure the government does not get 'locked in' to one specific vendor or company."

Ars Technica calls McNealy "an odd choice" to advise Obama on the subject.

"Although Obama's interest in open source looks like a promising sign that the incoming government is serious about reforming federal IT procurement policies, the decision to call on Sun's eccentric cofounder is an incomprehensible twist," write Ars Technica's Ryan Paul. "McNealy's long history of bizarre and contradictory positions on open source software make him a less than ideal candidate for helping to shape national policy on the subject. Asking Scott McNealy to write a paper about open source software is a bit like asking Dick Cheney to write a paper about government transparency."

Obama hasn't yet filled the newly created position of chief technology officer. Is McNealy's assignment a prelude to him being named to the position? That's not clear, but the BBC quotes him saying that whoever is named to the job should "have veto power, the right to eliminate any hardware, software or networking product that touches the federal network."

Now that would make things interesting.