Slashdot Mirror

This is of course great news. Maybe they should talk to Peruvian Congressman Dr. Edgar David Villanueva Nunez, the guy that wrote the letter to Microsoft about Peru using Free Software regarding Peru's new "Free Software in Public Administration bill".

Free Software is often better than proprietary software. The OpenSource movement bases it's whole argument on this point. The terms "Free Software" and "OpenSource" usually refer to the same thing, but if people don't value freedom, they won't see a reason not to switch back when a better (low-cost initially) proprietary alternative comes along.

I wonder if this has anything to do with Stallmans recent video talk at a brazillian Free Software conference.

"The goal of the migration is to save money by finding alternatives to expensive proprietary licenses."

The benefits of free software that Peruvian congressman Eduard Villanueva (sp?) cites include zero licensing cost, but that is hardly "the goal" of his proposal to require free (speech) software in government, but at best a bonus. If you recall his letter (it appears no longer to exist) to the General Manager of Microsoft Peru, he articulates a few fundamental principles of an open democratic society governing the indefinite preservation and free availability of public government information. These principles have among their consequences truths such as that public information that the government publishes digitally must be in a format the structure of which is publically known. This requirement is not met when such information is published in a proprietary and secret format controlled by an entity such as a corporation (and especially a foreign corporation).
He concludes that only software for which the source code is freely available is a wisely chosen basis on which to build the civil infrastructure of a free democratic society. This rules out publishing with Microsoft Word.

The fact that the Brazillian government has made no mention of such reasons shows a weakness in their position and commitment. This movement will probably slow down when Microsoft offers a "deep discount" on licenses; it may even have been initiated for just such an end. In contrast, if the B.Gov. were motivated by such principles as Villanueva's, then Microsoft software would not be allowed even at a cost of zero; and only if the format of .doc files were freely available would it be allowed.

What are you talking about? We get our brains fondled all the time by Microsoft.

I don't want to waste what time we have left with the present PC paradigm waiting for open source applications to catch up to the features and quality that proprietary software has TODAY.

How ironic it is then that you're talking about an Ogg Vorbis player--a patent-free encoding scheme invented to provide a competitive alternative to a patented scheme that can not legally be implemented in Free Software.

Peruvian Congressman Villanueva probably doesn't want to wait either, so he's working on Bill 1609 to put Free Software into public administration in Peru. The German government is funding a Free Software replacement for Outlook. These are just a couple examples of the things non-programmers around the world can do to help the cause of Free Software.

Nobody is saying you can't choose which software you want or that you will die if you pick proprietary software, those are straw arguments. I'm saying it is more reasonable to increase the number of people who are allowed to know what's going on with the software you run. We should hold all proprietary software to the same high standard we currently hold Microsoft's (overwhelmingly non-free) software to. Proprietary software, no matter what its ostensible purpose, can do things you would not like it to do. In order to keep the software from doing these undesirable things, we all need to develop and maintain a network of people who will inspect, share, and modify software to suit our needs. Keeping people from understanding how the software works helps these undesirable features stay hidden.

Couldn't geeks have found something better to support than "Free Software"? What was wrong with good old environmentalism or fighting against sweatshops in 3rd world countries?

There is no need to choose just one cause. There are people working on Free Software, the issues you name, and many other socially progressive issues all at the same time. I happen to be adept with computers, I support the Free Software movement, and I work on multiple other socially progressive projects. I think these movements draw like-minded people because their opposites (anti-environment, pro-sweatshop labor, anti-Free Software) usually come as a result of putting more power into fewer unaccountable hands.

Another way in which the anti-sweatshop movement and the environmental movement are both like the Free Software movement is how they all encourage you to think beyond your immediate desires. Sweatshop labor produces cheap goods which are readily available. But sweatshop labor also means people are working very hard and not getting paid a living wage. The anti-sweatshop labor movement encourages you to think beyond buying goods strictly based on price and consider helping poor workers make a fair living. The environmental movement wants you to think more about the car you drive, your heating and cooling system, and the advantages of recycling (amongst other things). In the Free Software movement you are encouraged to think beyond your immediate desire for a particular piece of software (such as the Ogg Vorbis player in this thread) and consider using a Free Software replacement instead. All of these things take a little bit of foresight and a lot of hard PR work to get people to not blindly comply with the latest advertisement.

These causes are not unique in the amount of work it takes to make them practical: it's hard work to make people aware of things and aware of people beyond themselves. It takes a lot of time and effort to provide socially responsible substitutes (competitive fair-wage clothing, low-emission vehicles, and yes, complete free software operating systems). So each of these movements (and many others) want you to volunteer your time and expertise.

MOST PEOPLE ARE NOT NOR EVER WANT TO BE PROGRAMMERS.

That is true, but most people do not want the private information on their computer leaked via a security hole, and most people are unhappy to discover that the secrecy of proprietary software allowed "spyware" (as it is called today) to execute on their machine. We aren't all scientists who understand the finer details of the things we use every day, but that doesn't mean we can't understand that gas hog cars, high pollutant exhausts, certain refrigerants, garbage landfills, and proprietary software are all bad in the long-term.

The Free Software movement has responses to the challenges they face and they target all computer users with their message. The Free Software movement can certainly use help in making their message clearer to non-programmers and getting their ideas out in front of the public. I hope you'll read what the FSF has to say and help them focus their message to reach a wider audience. After having worked on a congressional campaign, I have experienced first-hand how difficult it is to get the media's attention for an ethically-based message. I imagine helping the FSF get their message in front of the public is no easier.

No one is going to di[sic] if they can't copy a piece of software, a song, a video or a book. LIFE WILL GO ON, and it won't be bad.

Ask Lawrence Lessig how bad it will be. He knows a lot about the connections of copyright law, media access, and dissenting opinion. He champions what he calls "free culture", an idea that is well worth hearing. Preserving the freedoms to communicate and increasing these freedoms to allow more dissent to be heard are movements worth fighting for. Criticizing works can require copying portions of works, so if copying is made unavailable, critique and dissent are far more difficult. This might not seem like a big deal to you, but it is to people who want to convey unpopular messages including: not wanting an infinitely long copyright term, not bombing Iraq, and stopping the war of sanctions against Iraq, and no more "software patents". I hope you'll become more politically aware and see the extant connections that govern your life.

What, you mean like when Windows NT took out the U.S.S. Yorktown?

Or perhaps the endless backdoors that no one can actually audit because the EULA doesn't allow for it? So even the most paranoid of the paranoid get owned as a result?

Or perhaps you should instead rephrase your question into "Why Linux?" and then go read what Peruvian Congressman Dr. Edgar David Villaneuca Nunez has to say about the matter?

Dare I mention Microsoft's well-known anti-competitive ways?

Sometimes--even if a commercial tool is "better" for the task (and I really don't think it is), blind application of pure personal utilitarianism means you have to set aside any morals about supporting a corporation that's as blatantly ruthless as Microsoft is.

But hey--if you don't mind contributing to Microsoft's current inhumanity, then by all means, go ahead and pay their outrageous licensing fees and the more power to ya.

No, really: you just go ahead and knock down your straw man--in this case perhaps named the "One True Operating System" zealot--and the rest of us sane individuals will keep on doing real work with tools we know we can trust.

Yes, indeed these are great news! I'm really happy that Velug finally managed to pull out something good for us all :)

Oh yes, i live in Caracas, i run Freebsd in my home, i also do a little sysadmin job in another Freebsd machine on a cybercafe, and put Linux in a community FM radio (94.9FM) (only heard in parts of Caracas)

Im always trying to show the benefits of free software to my friends, and it is not easy. The same, well known issues arise again and again, but i will never give up :) Of course i don't push people to anything, in the end its their choice to give it a try. The incidents in Peru have been very inspiring for me to continue, and i hope to meet some of these fine people now finally in a position to do something positive for us all.

I can't accept the position of almost all the privately held media in Venezuela that absolutely everything out of this governement is bad and worst than the previous. This can't simply be true. Too many important people has been given now the oportunity that none of the previous corrupt politicians ever made to anyone unless a lot of cash were offered beforehand, in which case, of course was only for the benefit of the big foreign corporation interests.

Please continue to spread out the good positive news!

For people not living in Venezuela:

Most private media owners declared war to the current President, Hugo Rafael Chavez Frias, who apparently refused to continue maintaining special privileges for the sector. It was clearly evidenced in past Coup d'Etat (that only lasted 2 days!) when they not only closed the only non private held TV station (and all community radios), but also they self censored themselves by not showing any kind of news coverage of the events.

People who had satellite and cable TV could watch from CNN and Telemundo the events that were taking place only blocks away, but none of the local media were willing to show. One worker who later resigned in channel RCTV was literally given the order "Don't put on air any pro chavez demonstration".

Any journalist is supposed to get and show you both sides of a story, and then let you decide. In Venezuela, most news will only cover one side. As you have clearly seen, the intent for a few (used to be more priviledged than now class) is to get rid of Chavez at all costs. Simply because he is not willing to adhere to their interests.

Yes, 10 yrs ago Chavez attempted a Coup d'Etat, failed and went to prision. He later was set free, founded a political Party, and he cleanly won elections for president in 98. Truly some people were so angered by all the previous governements that made a dream of having a sort of "mesiah" that would came and clean it all. The reality showed otherwise. Trying to revert 4 decades of corruption is no small task, and it still erodes current goverment, so there have been lots of mistakes.

Mistakes that were not disguised, or denied, mistakes thas had been admited! And countless efforts have been made to settle things down, dialogue tables, international mediators (including the Carter Center), but there is a small yet powerful sector which happens to control most media which simply cares nothing and want him out.

I am still positive though. Things like Community Radio (known as Low Power FM movement in the states) and adoption of "Free Software whenever possible by the governement, are clear indications that things can be done, and ARE being done.

Venezuela has adopted a policy for the use of Open Source software in government wherever possible...

I doubt the veracity of that translation and the reference to "Open Source" in the Slashdot headline. The multiple references to "la filosofía del código libre" sure doesn't sound like a reference to "Open Source". It sounds like the speaker is talking about "the philosophy of Free Software"; an older movement with a different philosophy than the Open Source movement. In order to fully understand what is being said I need to understand the context in which these cognates appear.

Given the letter to Microsoft by Congressman Villanueva which skillfully described Free Software to a Microsoft representative, and the number of Slashdot participants who misinterpreted that letter as endorsing "Open Source", I'm not eager to take Slashdot's critique at face value. Also I know how some Open Source movement supporters like to refer to the GNU GPL in the context of the Open Source movement even though that reference misstates the authorship and intent of the license (the GNU GPL was written over a decade before that movement existed and does not express the motivations behind the Open Source movement). Therefore I am curious to read a translation of the interview written by a human being who is familiar with the issues involved.

The reasoning has nothing to do with Freedom. You and I are meant to be free; governments, as the executors of the will of the people, are not. We do have the right to force our government to choose Open Source.

The real question is, is this a good idea? And as the Peruvian Congressman stated so eloquently in his own letter, yes it is. The reason it is a good idea is because anything used by the government is public property, and public property must be subject to public review.

I highly recommend looking up and reading what Congressman Villanueva had to say on the topic, because he says it much more eloquently, and covers the important details and facts for why this is a necessary step for the preservation of democracy in the digital age.

Again, the government is the executor of the policy of freedom -- not free in itself. This is what freedom is about: The government is bound to the people's will, as opposed to the other way around. There are exceptions to protect certain things from the tyranny of the majority -- which are listed in the Bill of Rights. But these restrict which laws can govern the people, not which laws govern the government.

Anyhow, go read Villanueva's letter. It is as important a statement on the meaning of liberty as any ever written.

.

Here is the text of the bill pending in Peru drawn up by EDGAR VILLNUEVA NUÑEZ and JACQUES RODRICH ACKERMAN.

http://www.pimientolinux.com/peru2ms/free_software _bill.html

Note that California will soon be considering - like Peru - a law to mandate open source software in government.

No, not like Peru at all. Had you read the Peruvian congressman's letter you would not have made this mistake. The Peruvian bill clearly calls for free software ("software libre"), not open source. The freedom-minded perspective (what the other movement dismisses so glibly) is of the utmost importance for a proper understanding of the significance of the bill. Congressman Villanueva, the author of the letter to Microsoft and a major backer of bill #1609, understands the difference between the two movements and which is more appropriate for government to back (our government included). Congressman Villanueva takes the time to correct the Microsoft representative when Microsoft tries to slip one by him by referring to "open source". I suggest you read the letter to Microsoft and learn about the difference between the two movements. You might also want to read the Slashdot entry where these issues were discussed at length.

If you cut out Microsoft from *consideration*, you cut out huge areas of the US service industry.

• Free access to public information by the citizen.
• Permanence of public data.
• Security of the State and citizens.

Think about exactly how much of our technological economy is based on Microsoft. The world's leading computer manufacturers (Dell, HP, Compaq, etc.) ship Microsoft-based systems. They provide support (which means jobs) for those systems.

Are their Linux IT companies to help the Peruvian government manage their systems? Yes. Are they chances good they'll be around in six months? It's iffy, given the poor track record of open-source company management and the relative unprofessionalism that the industry (perceptionally) seems mired in.

A summary of your post: the U.S. economy relies on Microsoft (paragraph 2); Linux companies are all going to be bankrupt in half a year (paragraph 3); let different products compete for the business (paragraph 4). I don't see how [2] and [3] are true, first of all, and as for [4], Congressman Villanueva has let free software and Microsoft products compete: he compared them, and chose what looked like the best choice to be the government standard in his bill. Microsoft argued with his conclusions in the aforementioned letter, and Congressman Villaneuva promptly annihilated those arguments in his response.

If you cut out Microsoft from *consideration*, you cut out huge areas of the US service industry.

• Free access to public information by the citizen.
• Permanence of public data.
• Security of the State and citizens.

Think about exactly how much of our technological economy is based on Microsoft. The world's leading computer manufacturers (Dell, HP, Compaq, etc.) ship Microsoft-based systems. They provide support (which means jobs) for those systems.

Are their Linux IT companies to help the Peruvian government manage their systems? Yes. Are they chances good they'll be around in six months? It's iffy, given the poor track record of open-source company management and the relative unprofessionalism that the industry (perceptionally) seems mired in.

A summary of your post: the U.S. economy relies on Microsoft (paragraph 2); Linux companies are all going to be bankrupt in half a year (paragraph 3); let different products compete for the business (paragraph 4). I don't see how [2] and [3] are true, first of all, and as for [4], Congressman Villanueva has let free software and Microsoft products compete: he compared them, and chose what looked like the best choice to be the government standard in his bill. Microsoft argued with his conclusions in the aforementioned letter, and Congressman Villaneuva promptly annihilated those arguments in his response.

If you cut out Microsoft from *consideration*, you cut out huge areas of the US service industry.

• Free access to public information by the citizen.
• Permanence of public data.
• Security of the State and citizens.

Think about exactly how much of our technological economy is based on Microsoft. The world's leading computer manufacturers (Dell, HP, Compaq, etc.) ship Microsoft-based systems. They provide support (which means jobs) for those systems.

Are their Linux IT companies to help the Peruvian government manage their systems? Yes. Are they chances good they'll be around in six months? It's iffy, given the poor track record of open-source company management and the relative unprofessionalism that the industry (perceptionally) seems mired in.

A summary of your post: the U.S. economy relies on Microsoft (paragraph 2); Linux companies are all going to be bankrupt in half a year (paragraph 3); let different products compete for the business (paragraph 4). I don't see how [2] and [3] are true, first of all, and as for [4], Congressman Villanueva has let free software and Microsoft products compete: he compared them, and chose what looked like the best choice to be the government standard in his bill. Microsoft argued with his conclusions in the aforementioned letter, and Congressman Villaneuva promptly annihilated those arguments in his response.

Dr. Edgar David Villanueva Nuñez's answer to Juan Alberto González's letter is the most brilliant text about free and proprietary software written by politician I've ever seen. (Juan Alberto González is a General Manager of Microsoft Perú. Dr. Edgar David Villanueva Nuñez is a Congressman of the Republic of Perú.)

I really wish we had such people among Polish politicians. I wish you, Ramsés, together with other people in Panamá to convince your politicians what's best for your citizens, even if it's not best for fraudulent megacorporations like Microsoft, and even if it means making the richest man on Earth slightly less rich.

See also the interviews with Dr. Edgar David Villanueva Nuñez on LinuxToday and Linux Journal, as well as other links from the Peruvian Activism website.

Dr. Edgar David Villanueva Nuñez's answer to Juan Alberto González's letter is the most brilliant text about free and proprietary software written by politician I've ever seen. (Juan Alberto González is a General Manager of Microsoft Perú. Dr. Edgar David Villanueva Nuñez is a Congressman of the Republic of Perú.)

I really wish we had such people among Polish politicians. I wish you, Ramsés, together with other people in Panamá to convince your politicians what's best for your citizens, even if it's not best for fraudulent megacorporations like Microsoft, and even if it means making the richest man on Earth slightly less rich.

See also the interviews with Dr. Edgar David Villanueva Nuñez on LinuxToday and Linux Journal, as well as other links from the Peruvian Activism website.

Dr. Edgar David Villanueva Nuñez's answer to Juan Alberto González's letter is the most brilliant text about free and proprietary software written by politician I've ever seen. (Juan Alberto González is a General Manager of Microsoft Perú. Dr. Edgar David Villanueva Nuñez is a Congressman of the Republic of Perú.)

I really wish we had such people among Polish politicians. I wish you, Ramsés, together with other people in Panamá to convince your politicians what's best for your citizens, even if it's not best for fraudulent megacorporations like Microsoft, and even if it means making the richest man on Earth slightly less rich.

See also the interviews with Dr. Edgar David Villanueva Nuñez on LinuxToday and Linux Journal, as well as other links from the Peruvian Activism website.

I believe that Villaneuva's letter to Microsoft does that rather nicely.

The letters between Microsoft and Congressman Villanueva give an excellent clarification of what Microsoft is about in software, and what it is like to truly look at software as a tool of the users, not as one of the vendor.

I suggest they read Villanueva's reply to Microsoft Peru, for its excellent and logical discussion of the reason why responsible government must use open-source software.

u can check it at here
regards

More coverage on this entire topic here

Your title is odd, bordering on insulting. As for the content of your report, I wonder which movement you are focusing on—the older, ethics-based Free Software movement that speaks to all computer users, or the freedom-dismissing, development methodology-centered Open Source movement which speaks primarily to businesses? Were you aware of the difference between the two movements? Some people use the term "Open Source" without understanding the ramifications of that term. You simply cannot understand what's going on with the Open Source movement until you first understand what drove RMS to make the Free Software movement and what the Free Software movement advocates.

The question is: which vocal, intelligent, [San Francisco] bay area and vicinity OS insiders should be on the show?

A better question to ask is "Who can speak well on the topic we're looking to make our radio show about?" without limiting it to a particular region. There is so much valuable insight to be had from everywhere, it seems silly to limit it to just the SF bay area. A cursory analysis of the Free Software community (which is the same community you're referring to as "Open Source") shows that where people are physically located is irrelevant. RMS would be a good person to include on a discussion of Free Software since he founded the movement (which predates all work done on the Open Source movement by roughly 13 years) and (as far as I know) he lives in or near Boston. If you asked him he might be willing to talk to you.

If you haven't already, please read Congressman Villanueva's letter to Microsoft for some guidance about what you should be talking about on this program (including terminology—notice he talks only of Free Software because that is the movement that jibes with his ethical approach to making sure the government doesn't force its citizens into a single-source software provider by the data formats it chooses). The same issues affect the USA. His analysis is a brilliant denial of Microsoft's lies, so well-worded many have noted it should be required reading. Congressman Villanueva is from Peru. Again I stress: there are all sorts of people all over the world you need to talk to and learn from in order to really understand the Free Software community enough to do a good report.

Have you also considered that many people who talk about "Open Source" don't understand what that means? If you think it's all about seeing the source code, you're wrong. Some of the licenses the Open Source movement advocates support allow proprietary derivatives to be made. This is a major issue for the two movements. But members of the two movements get along too: they work on software projects together and the Open Source movement proponents create a lot of valuable software that are genuinely worthwhile Free Software contributions.

Your post doesn't indicate how much research you've done to understand what's going on, so forgive me if this seems like a repeat of what you already know. I hope you understand the community of developers and users that started in 1984 has more to say than just "don't believe everything Microsoft tells you".

The Peruvian Congressman's reply to the Microsoft FUD has to be one of the most well thought out, and level-headed arguments against MS that I have read. It's a rather long read, but you should check it out.

The Peruvian Congressman's reply to the Microsoft FUD has to be one of the most well thought out, and level-headed arguments against MS that I have read. It's a rather long read, but you should check it out.

yes the original letters have been mirrored on my site All the documents are here, including the original scanned Microsoft letter and its translation into english.

Go check for the yummy stuff:

http://www.pimientolinux.com/peru2ms/