Slashdot Mirror

All that is required is permanent lobby hammering for open source, open standards and Linux operating system. When Europe takes a geostrategic approach then its clear that Linux is the way to go, to avoid strategic dependencies.

When you lobby for Linux using grassroot efforts its very difficult to get killed by the salesman from the other side, because Linux is both a product and a political movement. Time is runnign out for Microsoft.

Just have a look at that poor effort to prevent a strong open source movement in eGovernment.

The most eggregious FUD site I have ever seen is this one.

The site advocates that people should "procure software on its merit" -- which sounds fine on the surface -- but it turns out that they refuse to recognize that free licensing could ever be considered a "merit".

It's quite amazing to see such a large and pretty site devoted solely to trying to convince customers that they are wrong to care about free licensing, and that they should evalute software ONLY on the basis of its functionality.

The message is: "Customers are wrong to think the way they do. They need to think the way we tell them to."

Don't stop. I think you'll find that there are a lot more greedy companies out there than just Microsoft. For example, what is Intel (primarily a hardware manufacturer) doing on that list?

And the plot thickens...

The author of the article works for the Initiative for Software Choice. Or Yet Another Microsoft-Funded 'Independent' Body (TM). Check the list of members.

This article is just crap. It's Microsoft-funded FUD and another attempt to scare people away from the Massachusetts initiative.

Ignore it and call it for what it is.

The author of the article works for the Initiative for Software Choice. Or Yet Another Microsoft-Funded 'Independent' Body (TM). Check the list of members.

This article is just crap. It's Microsoft-funded FUD and another attempt to scare people away from the Massachusetts initiative.

Ignore it and call it for what it is.

From the ZDNet Article:
Software Choice, (on the other hand), will try to convince legislators that open standards and open source don't necessarily go together. "It is important that government policy recognize that open standards--which are available to any software developers--are not synonymous with, and do not require, open source software either for their adoption or utility," Software Choice stated.
Also, their own policy:
Voluntary, industry-led standard setting is the most effective way to develop platform-neutral and market-based standards. When these standards are open and available to all through reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing they help developers to create products that can interoperate with each other.
Sorry to state the obvious, but they can't possibly seem to have a problem with Open (document) Standards; an yet somehow they do. God help the "value" economy!

From the Initiative for Software Choice:
To encourage continued software innovation and promote broad choice, governments are encouraged to consider the following neutral principles:
* Procure software on its merits, not through categorical preferences
* Promote broad availability of government funded research
* Promote interoperability through platform-neutral standards
* Maintain a choice of strong intellectual property protections


YEAH, really neutral!

* Procure software on its merits, not through categorical preferences
* Promote broad availability of government funded research
* Promote interoperability through platform-neutral standards
* Maintain a choice of strong intellectual property protections

hmmm...
First off, how does open source as an option interfere with these stated goals? I think that every open-source project would like to be considered for use by guvs and corps alongside their closed-source counterparts on an equality basis.
How the hell do they think "interoperability through platform-neutral standards" and "strong intellectual property protections" can coexist? With some notable exceptions, protected standards aren't open... when there's a problem to be solved, every company puts people to work and creates a proprietary standard, and then haggles with the competitors over which one wins. (blu-ray hd-dvd, beta vhs etc etc etc).
In the long-term, strong protections will result in only closed standards.
I'm amused that I started writing about IP in my journal this morning... this will certainly add fuel for my upcoming entries.

If you haven't seen these organizations before, read the Reg or SourceWatch

It is not that funny. A microsoft representative Mr Belz recently said in Germany (Stuttgart Landtag, lots of MEPs) the directive was not about software, so the contradiction was why Microsoft needed such patents.

CII makes you believe it was something different than software. this is why the EPO invented the term.

http://www.softwarechoice.org/software_comp/cii_de fault.aspx

> Just search for pro patent websites, you have to be an idiot to accept their rediculous claims and far-flung reasoning.

http://www.patents4innovation.org/
http://www.campaignforcreativity.org/

Two very good astroturfing sites pro software patents. And Microsoft's Softwarechoice

http://www.softwarechoice.org/software_comp/cii_de fault.aspx

In fact you can read the examination guidelines of the EPO how it is done. Some scholars complain about it and the European Parliament has to correct the mess now.

Currently the EPO even takes part in many Microsoft Softwarechoice/compTIA lobbying events. The EPO is no EU body but totally independent. It will be difficult to get the system back under legislative control but the European Parliament will try. Now the Committee on Legal Affairs works on the directive.

What kind of support can YOU provide?

* US citizens may get subscribed in the us-parl mailing list. software patents are an international problem, so we have to get rid off them internationally.
* EU citizens can have a look at this list
* EU citizens shall make an appointment with their MEP
* Donate to the FFII
* Register as a supporter via aktiv.ffii.org, members unlike supporters additionally pay membership fees.

Having friends within the ATO I can tell you with certainty that no savings will be passed on to the public.

That said, we may incur LESS additional budget bloat (a fixture since the introduction of GST and the complete farce of it's implementation).

Q.

Well, Vietnam had freedom of choice, and it exercised it. Therefore, this is yet another victory for freedom of choice.

This is simply a case of a customer making decisions based on their needs and preferences. And despite the propaganda of the proprietary sector, license terms are a valid factor for customers to base their purchasing decisions.

If open source eventually "wins" and shuts out all proprietary software, there is no evidence that overall innovation would decrease, because competition is alive and well within the open source community (see SourceForge).

I'm looking hard, but I just don't see the downside that you seem to be hinting at.

I agree. Government policies that close doors to competition are bad. Linux might work in some situations, but not in others. There are plenty of good software packages out there to use, and plenty of specific packages for government, that wont exist in OSS until someone is paid (gobs of cash) to write them.

Massachusetts, the lone holdout state still suing Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) for antitrust violations, will become the first state to adopt a broad-based strategy of moving its computer systems toward open standards, including Linux, the rival operating system to Microsoft's Windows.

On Thursday, September 25, 2003 Massachusetts CIO Peter Quinn announced the state's "Freeware Initiative" - an effort requiring that all IT expenditures in 2004 and 2005 be made on open source/Linux software/platforms if possible.

Seriously, the only reference I can find on Google is another rant against it.

I'm inclined to believe that the press release is misrepresenting the facts. In fact, the other press release that I found here [www.softwarechoice.org] says that it will be "an effor requiring that all IT expenditures in 2004 and 2005 be made on open source/Linus software/platforms if possible." This seems a little different that requiring that all systems be open source, which seemed to be implied by the CCAGW press release.

...

I found this[www.miami.com], which gives a very little bit more information, talking about "open standards".

andy

Two sites to check out are egovos.org and this one at netaction.org. There's also the other side.

I was only making a reference to this recent Slashdot story. I don't know if this example is typical, but out of 200+ companies lobbying your South Australian government, it seems there is only one that is actually Australian.

This would be going against the "Software Choice" campain that is being promoted through the Initiative for Software Choice organization.. So is this organization not really promoting what they say they are?

I find it amusing that out of the 200+ companies that are lobbying the South Australian government, there isn't a single one that is Australian.

In the Bill itself, its seems to be addressing "Mr President". Im unsure of whom this bill is being proposed too, but if its a Parliament bill, wouldn't it be addressed to Mr Speaker or Mr Premier?

Secondly, this ISC mob seem to be pro choice, as long as that choice is from a commercial product. From the article -

"...look to the competitive software market to acquire the best solution for a given need."

From their members page, i can see a few more noticeable companies, including Microsoft, yet I cannot identify any open-source companies. Not too much "choice" there, i think.

The lobby group consists of these people.

It's the usual suspects (MS included). A bill which requires Open Source to be considered will harm their business model. Therefore it must be stopped. Note that the bill doesn't prevent the use of proprietary software, it merely requires people who procure software for the public sector to consider open source. That sounds like software choice to me.

For anyone that missed it, the original MITRE report is here (this basically started things going) and the rebuttel paper from the Initiative for Software Choice is here.

Again, for those that missed it, the Initiative for Software Choice, though at an 'org' is funded by MS and others of the big software makers.

The response paper goes through quite a bit of trouble to label the GPU as a viral license and the resulting dangers as well as going into how giving 'preferential' treatment to open source will hurt the software industry (monetarily) and the government (by cutting off choice).

They definitely try to do a nice 'turn around'. Open source is hit as not being any more secure than commercial software, that the GPL (specifically) can/will pollute developed works and that the policy change is not only not needed but will deprive the government of choice and the ability to select the best software for a given job.

For completeness, the cnet article is also here.

They have a very interesting membership list

Looks like a lot of super high-powered cyber cafes and basement-office "WE FIX YOU COMPUTER CHEAP OK!" consultants if you ask me.

Perhaps we should all apply for membership in this prestigious group.

They have a very interesting membership list

Looks like a lot of super high-powered cyber cafes and basement-office "WE FIX YOU COMPUTER CHEAP OK!" consultants if you ask me.

Perhaps we should all apply for membership in this prestigious group.

• Procure software on its merits, not through categorical preferences
• Promote broad availability of government funded research
• Promote interoperability through platform-neutral standards
• Maintain a choice of strong intellectual property protections

• Procure software on its merits, not through categorical preferences
• Promote broad availability of government funded research
• Promote interoperability through platform-neutral standards
• Maintain a choice of strong intellectual property protections

If you read the actual article recommendation the /. summary is simply incorrect. The recommendation was:

a) The choice of open source vs. closed source be made on a project by project basis and not be a matter of policy. In particular the DoD should not adobt a preferential policy favoring open source over closed source when possible,

b) While BSD licenses are OK using GPL licenses violate congressional norms (in particular they make commercial software impossible)

In addition things not mentioned in the summary

a) DoD is far and away the largest user of open source in the government

b) Security issues are ambigious with regard open source vs. closed source

c) A great deal of open source software violates all sorts of other government regulations and the government would end up having to bring these systems into compliance.

Yes the comments were hostile to open source particularly GPL they certainly where nowhere near the summary though.

Bookmarking this handy page to keep track of how well OSS is doing! Naughty software procurement policies.

Incidentally, don't use put a single quote in the zipcode field on their registration form...

This is the ISC member list.
Did you notice the high percentage of Arab members?
No wonder this group recommends the DOD to use closed source software.

Anyways, a funny highlight, one of their members is: "Open Solutions" =)

If only he were using an open-source format for his letters....

From the "Institute for Software Choice" news page, they provide a link entitled "ISC response to SF Gate, Perens Article" (/. discussion of that article here).

Their link? A Microsoft Word document.

ISC: If you are an organisation claiming to promote open standards, why in the world are you releasing data in the very, very closed DOC format?

From the "Institute for Software Choice" news page, they provide a link entitled "ISC response to SF Gate, Perens Article" (/. discussion of that article here).

Their link? A Microsoft Word document.

ISC: If you are an organisation claiming to promote open standards, why in the world are you releasing data in the very, very closed DOC format?

Where is the DHTML code on this page?"

Bruce's site uses straight HTML, no graphics at all...

I think Rune69 may have got confused and went to (the alleged) Microsoft run Software Choice site, which DOES use DHTML

Can you say "I'm an idiot"?

How about "I can't read /. articles properly BECAUSE I'm an idiot"?

This infuriates me with its ignorance. I've never seen such a piece of sensationalism posing as technical information. Well, outside of Redmond of course.

The author defines the very nature of the Web and then asks us to be concerned. It's like writing a book about an airplane and saying "When you get in an airplane you're actually traveling hundreds of miles an hour thousands of feet in the air strapped to tons of explosive. This is horribly dangerous!"

Held up as a Holy Grail of professional development practice, "backward compatibility" sounds good in theory. But the cost is too high and the practice has always been based on a lie.

Backward compatibility does not mean supporting every single browser that was ever created since the dawn of the Web. How compatible to be is defined differently by each project. My decision on a small project may be to only support IE 5+ for Windows, but that decision would make no sense at all for Yahoo!.

And the cost is too high? How is too high defined, and for whom? If I can spend $10,000 in development costs to make my site available to another 5% of my target audience and I can predict that this will increase revenues by $100,000, then it makes sense to do so.

As a Web developer, allow me to generalize when I say that we do code to standards, standards being defined as what most people are using, whether those standards are open or closed, blessed by a standards organization or just de facto. I could code my sites to exactly follow the formal standards instead of the practical standards. In fact I have. Then I've watched the site not work across multiple browsers, even if I'm concerned with nothing other than IE 5 or higher and the latest Mozilla/Netscape on Mac and Windows. That's 97% of my traffic right there. If I don't implement a non-standard workaround, I lose my audience.

Whether the interests of a particular site are commercial or not, the goal of that site almost without exception is to be available to as many people who want to view it as possible. I'm going to code in whatever way maximizes my audience. If 83% of the people coming to my site use IE (current stats for my site, YMMVIANALFIIK) and IE doesn't follow the standards, I can't decide to alienate those people if it means I lose money, or fail to get my message out, or Mom and Dad can't read my blog.

So what am I supposed to do? Call Microsoft and complain that they better straighten up and fly right, because my 2400 page views a day say so? Or as an end-user maybe I should stop buying IE and send them a financial message. Oh wait...

Principles for Software Choice
Promote interoperability through platform-neutral standards
Voluntary, industry-led standard setting is the most effective way to develop platform-neutral and market-based standards. When these standards are open and available to all through reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing they help developers to create products that can interoperate with each other. It is important that government policy recognize that open standards - which are available to any software developers - are not synonymous with, and do not require, open source software either for their adoption or utility. Developers of commercial software that may not typically publish their source code often contribute technology and intellectual property needed to develop new standards. Governmental policy on software standards should not discriminate in favor of or against any particular software development model.