Slashdot Mirror
Free Software Law in Argentina
Free Software Law for Argentina
There's presently a law being discussed at the Congress in Argentina, that would make mandatory the use of and migration to Free Software when possible.
That law was originally proposed by a Congressmen, but he contacted people from the Free Software Community in Argentina (non-profit organizations, LUGs, etc.), and we have already suggested many changes that are making into the law. This has already a big push from a lot of people (including RMS), but we are interested about opinions and suggested changes for the law, coming from the Slashdot community
Sorry for not having an URL published, there's one but we have very little bandwidth
This is a translation of the law being discussed. It's already in discussion at the congress, and moving on
Note: all uses of the "free" word are for spanish "libre", i.e, free as in free speech, not free beer.
Policy for Free Software use for the Federal State
Article 1: The National Public Administration, Decentralized Organizations and corporations where the State is a majoritary shareholder will only use for their IT systems and equipments free programs (software).
Article 2: "free program (software)", will be understood as software with a license of use that guarantees the user, without an extra fee, the following rights:
- Non-restricted use of the program for any purpose
- Exhaustive inspection of the internal program operation.
- Use of the internal working, and of arbitrary segments of the program, to adaptate them to user needs
- Production and distribution of copies of the program
- Modification of the program, and free distribution of the modifications and the resulting new program, under these same conditions.
Article 3: The source program of any free program must be the primary resource used by the programmer for modifying and inspecting it. Therefore, no program categorized as free can contain any restriction difficulting its access, or intermediate stages as output from a non-free pre-processor or compiler.
Article 4: Licenses for free programs used by the National Public Administration, Decentralized Organizations, and corporations where the State is a majoritary shareholder, will have, in all cases, to allow explicitly modification and derived works, as well as non-restricted distribution of these works with the same license as the original program.
Article 5: The Executive Power will set in a term of 180 days, the conditions, timelines, and ways to implement the transition from present systems to free programs as defined in Articles 1 to 4; and will move future licitations and contracting of computer programs (software) in that direction.
Artice 6: From the date established by the Executive Power on, Public National Organizations mentioned in article 1 of this law, will not be allowed to use programs that store data in non-public format, or with licenses which:
- Imply any form of discrimination to people or groups.
- Don't fulfill of the preceding Article 2.
- Are specific or exclusive for only one product.
Article 7: Once finished the transition term, with a duration regulated by the National Executive Power as expressed in Article 5, there will be exclusively contracting and use of free computer programs.
Article 8: The Public State Universities, the Provincial and the City Governments, and the Autonomous Government of the city of Buenos Aires are invited to adhere this initiative
Article 9: Communicate this to the National Executive Power"
Great proposal, I hope many countries wirth tight budget would do the same. If Che Guevara was alive would run Linux.
Death penalty,
...
No drinking allowed for adults under 21(?!),
No use of such words as Fuck, Cunt, Dick(unless that's someone's name),etc
Nudity(well considering how fat americans are, this is a good thing)
Minority quotas for employers
Ucita
DMCA
Gun laws (or lack of them)
YASSGLRALT --- Yet Another Stupid Slashdot Gpl Linux Rms Ass Licking Troll
Not to mention that ten years from now, none of the secretaries will know what MSWord is, they will have become so proficient with their free word processor that your argument will have become reversed!
Don't even get me started on how much time secretaries waste fsking around with fonts and spacings and shit to get it to look "pretty". How much money was wasted on that? I can only imagine how incredibly efficient they would be with a reduced-feature word processor that only did what they needed.
There is no extra burden to the government at all. The same people who keep track and recomend propriatery software, they now have to to keep track of Free software. The issues regarding customer support are totally unjustified: too many choices, they could either provide no support (the present status), or outside Free companies could perform such tasks, not the proprietory companies.
The problem with some foreign governments is that they don't share our American Values. (George W. Bush) [ Reply to This | Parent | ]
Argetina will still pay for software, but they will be paying for programmers to modify the software so that EVERYONE in the government can USE that software.
Think about it. In its current state, Linux is not as useable as Windows or Mac for average Joe User.
So, Argentina pays to make adjustments to X or Y Open Source project. Maybe they will invest in Helix... maybe they will invest in backbone stuff...
but the point is that they will still be spending MONEY and RESOURCES and giving the community feedback. No, not every Agentine will look at source code, but now we will have average users on a MASS SCALE using the software and suggesting thing to make their lives easier. Even better, the gov. of Argentina will pay money to make things easier for their workers...
Will they spend even 1/10th as much as if they went to MS to get software? no, but they will still spend lots of money, and that money will make YOUR experience better!!!
A customer, indeed, is free to choose what they wish. In this case, the A. government (the customer) can choose Free software. Where is the problem? I though you are for customer having a choice.
US needs new schools, the current ones are obviously turning out dumber people than it used to.
Dude, $595 of the $600 went to Area 51 and other black projects, not to toilet seat manufacturers.
The money "saved" by going open source would be lost in the subsequent economic slump.
Now, I have one question. Is there a study in which open/free licenses are correct for the definition of 'free software' that the law mentions?
Regards,
Pablo Baena
pbaena@uol(punto)com.ar
Have you reviewed some of the outlandish laws still on the books in the USA? We're not better than them on that regard, unless having more bogus laws makes us better...
This law project was mentioned already in Barrapunto, the spanish Slashdot. The comments was interesting (however, they are all in Spanish).
Perhaps if the government didn't have to pay so much in software licensing fees they could afford to pay their employees more.
The fact of the matter is that it takes equivalent effort to secure both Linux and Windows (actually, that isn't quite true Linux is easier to secure...). The same government employees that are currently setting up insecure Windows boxes would almost certainly set up Linux so that it was insecure as well.
Linux would at least be less expensive.
Argentina and the other latin american countries
can easily _legalize_ their software. They are,
after all, sovereign nations and can, therefore,
do that by fiat. All they have to do is declare
it legal by making their own laws. That is what
being a sovereign nation is all about.
Yoghurt
I wasn't aware that Microsoft was headquartered in Argentina (I've always heard of them as being ``in Redmond, Washington''), so I'm a bit confused about the mechanism by which Windows is deemed native and Unix is deemed foreign.
Linux, in particular, has Argentinian contributors (Quiz question: is there a country from which nobody has contributed to the Linux kernel?) so would by any normal classification system be regarded as less importado than Windows.
Microsoft must have slipped one past the Argentine populace ``tal como mantequilla en un chango pelon'' (-: BTW, since I guess you speak fluent Argentine, commentary on the language abuse in the above link would be welcome :-)
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Seriously, this is not a law, it is an internal gummint regulation. The Argentinian gummint departments simply abide by it. If the director of a department refuses to comply, he promptly stops being the director, and the next director complies.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
There's nothing preventing Microsoft from opening their software and continuing to not be paid for it by Argentinians. (-:
While this government regulation is selling some freedom (per se) it is maintaining at least a broad range of choices as a consequence. And in this case the tradeoff seems to be a good one. The best program for the job should win out, but that presumes the absence of salesmen and back-room deals (leaving aside proprietary lock-in effects), which in the case of a normal South American country would be an extremely stupid presumption to make.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I hate to come across all Jesuit about this, but it seems from your statements that the CIA don't understand the GPL: the modified source only has to be distributed as much as the modified binary. You could comply by shipping your GPL-software-containg grey box with a source CD inside it (taped/clamped inside the cover).
This is either perfectly normal paranoia (``every being in the universe has that'') or very bad software design. If your software becomes insecure when the source for it becomes available, you have no business doing security in the first place.
If the device the CIA are working with shouldn't exist, or if they're exceeding their mandate in dealing with something, then what they are already involved in is far more problematic to them than a mere software licence. To put this into perspective: if you are ignoring laws about dealing with drugs, murdering people, prohibited weapons etc then you're not going to give two pinches of gecko poo about a mere software licence, are you?
And I might suggest to any enemies of the CIA that it may be safer to rely on a black-box analysis of a dodgy CIA program than on the source.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I very much agree. Unlike biological evolution, Open Source clearly admits an intelligent design mechanism and directed feedback.
Biological evolution postulates mutation as an information-generating mechanism, against all common sense, mathematical principles and every shard of experimental evidence. This is so absurd a practice that bizarre ideas like entelechy are offered as alternatives.
Mutation is about as useful for providing or improving biological design as a high-powered rifle is for providing or improving Lego layouts.
To make the US gummint purchasing system work for software, all you need add is Free (libre) Software. They may get shafted once, but only once, in each segment of the market.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Boy, would Richard Stallman bounce you hard for that one! Choice is the poor, crippled cousin of freedom. What the Argentinian gummint is doing is curtailing the freedom of suppliers a little (not completely: nothing stoppping them from Opening their products and soldiering on) in order to protect their own freedom. Which is a very good idea.
If they mandated this for their citizens as well, that would not be so crash hot. It would be better to mandate open interfaces (file formats, APIs etc) and penalise corporations who fail to comply with their own APIs.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
"Teachers, especially those with large bustlines, face a serious peoblem in Cordoba, Argentina. A woman simply cannot be hired to teach if her chest is big. Why? Because lawmakers in Cordoba finally came to realize that a large, shapely chest is just "too much of a distraction for teenage boys in a classroom."
:)
Anyone who had Ms. Skruukrud for Biology class in my high school would realize immediately the validty of this statement.
---
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout. --Robert A. Heinlein
No comment...
--
I think the author of the post was comparing something like MySQL to Oracle. If I am going to run UPS. I am going to run it on Oracle. MySql is just no their yet. OpenLDAP is not at the same level as Netscape LDAP. Both these issues are changing quickly, but a lot of open source programs are just not their yet.
Cheers,
Tomas
===========
Free software is great, but what happened to freedom of speech? This is a very bad thing!
While i for one would be irritated were my employer to demand i use a certain operating system or set of software to do my job, i do believe an employer has the right to dictate what equipment the employees use at work.
The law probably ought to contain some kind of back door-- like, something where a person at a state university can appeal this law and be given an exception based on usage of free software being unreasonable given a lack of free software alternatives to a closed source program they need to use-- but still there are all kinds of reasons why this is a good idea. I for one would be alarmed by the idea of the government gaining a dependence on a private software company; if you can't get out your welfare checks without this tracking software created by a company in another country, and that other country suddenly becomes diplomatically hostile to you, and you suddenly discover a horrible bug that absolutely has to be fixed that instant for the system to continue functioning, and you can't get the source.. well, that's bad. But if you have the source you (the government) can fix and continue to maintain things yourself.
I wish english had a pronoun for the abstract third person. Yes, i know i could use "one". That doesn't count.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Of course, opening trade with Cuba would actually probably be better for US governmental interests. Can you imagine what would happen if people in Cuba knew what modern goods looked like? They still drive cars from 50s down there.
If the US opened trade with Cuba the people living there would probably have alot better lives, and, (I am not endorsing any type of gov't or economy here), it would also probably lead the overthrow of the government and replacing it with a democracy or something similar.
So why don't we trade with Cuba? Every politician in DC probably already smokes cuban cigars anyway, right?
What?
A local geek was requested for comments? An actual geek or just a knowledgeable free software person?
If he/she was an actual pure 100% geek, then it may be a good time to introduce some geektreats into the law:
- All future laws should be numbered with the prefix 'RFC'
- Tax deduction on geekwear
- Make Donations of CPU cycles tax deductable.
- Make PING->ACK and SYN->ACK->RST official governmental language to be used in government activities (courtroom, house sessions, etc).
- URL-compliant world: All street and postal addresses to be written in URL format: Where do you live? "address://mycity/mainstreet/1034". Plus clickable street signs.
- Social security includes money for a DSL connection for everybody.
- More hours of open source computer programming classes in schools. "Ok children, let's go to lesson two: now everybody type in './configure ; make'"
- Make the congressional library available on gnutella and freenet. Plus post all new items on usenet.
- All governmental sessions to be live MP3 streamed.
(most suggestions above not to be taken seriously of course)
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
There's a matter of scale here, though. If a government thinks that some particular software should be written, should be available, it can afford to subsidize a project to create it. If the previously best product were sold at $x, then if the government buys y copies per year, a projection says that all cost of the project will be recovered in z years. Say it spends the same amount it would have spent on the software, instead on development. If it spends the cost of a Server with a T1 connection to the internet and a good administrator then the rest of the yearly expense can be used to support the project. If it takes 3 years to complete the project, the project will pay for itself in three years more. And three years is probably excessive. Most software is much simpler than that, and isn't starting from scratch.
For that matter, they could break it into small pieces, and subsidize university advanced degree programs to build the pieces (well, you would need a good project leader team). Just consider how fast Linux started moving in the last couple of years, largely because of a lot of prior work, but also because people were paid to work on it.
OTOH, a sharp cut-off may be unrealistic. But it may not! This would hardly be implemented before next year, and by then Linux systems should be useable for nearly any purpose. It's already pretty good. The main hang-up seems to be word processing, though I suppose if I used the fancier features of a spreadsheet I might notice some problems there...but it might just be difference. Guile and Python as scripting languages are DIFFERENT from basic, but I would hardly say they were inferior.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
And most importantly: How can you convince some mid-level bureaucrat to pay for every copy of Microsoft Word that his or her department uses, when it's so much easier to run off another copy (or share the CD, or find some way to defeat Microsoft's copy protection) than to pay for the extra copy?
--
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
In America, in order for your car to be legal, it must have brake lights, headlights, an illuminated (sp?) license plate, and some device for signaling.
This law is similar. These are the rules for software companies to go by. It's the same idea.
Do the obvious to e-mail me.
I agree to that btw: Requiring government to use only open file-formats and protocols makes a lot more sense than requiring open software.
I don't know if I would call Argentina a third world country... I mean, it's not the United States of America or anything, but it is a far cry from Ethiopia or something...
IBM? IBM *does* have people support quite a bit of open source software presently.
KLAATU, BORADA, NIh*ahem*
Our intention is twofold: first, to have the government _use_ exclusively open software, and second to have the government release all the software produced by or for it under [a version translated into argentine legalize of] the GPL.
(remember it's only a law project, so s/does/would as currently phrased/ :)
with notable exceptions (e.g. military), the law would _require_ all software used by the government to be available in source form to the general public.
that's *your* God, btw.
The money would just be re-directed into a slush fund for the cia or to the DEA to fight the war.
It seems to center around software used by the goverment. I think any software funded by public money should be required to be released under the GPL also.
I'll try to be more clear, and explain why the "bug in the microphone" concept, often touted as an example of why open-source software is so wonderful, doesn't quite apply in this case.
The desire for a free government has to do with the information that the government produces and manages, like you say. What's necessary to make open is this information. The citizens should have free access to all of the databases, documents, images, and such that are produced.
Now note that this means that everything that is produced should be put under some type of "open" license. Since this information contains a lot of things that are not software, it requires something more than an open-source software license like the GPL.
There is only one case in which your "bug in the microphone" analogy works. It is the case in which the government produces software. In that case, the software should just as open as the other information that's produced.
With this in mind, the tools that the government uses to produce its information, be it software or otherwise, does not necessarily have to be "open". Why in the world should the government be forbidden from using Microsoft Word if it's just the document (published as PDF, HTML, or some other open document standard) that is in the public interest to be "free"?
Thus, as I tried to point out in my original post, the argument that citizens must be able to examine all of its government's actions does not logically lead to the conclusion that all "tools of the trade" need to be open source.
-Sean
And, BTW, thanks for your support in the "tools" vs. "the information" argument.
-Sean
Examining everything that the government does doesn't mean that you need the source code to all of the software that they use.
For example, examining all of the documents that the government produces, including internal ones, doesn't require that you also be able to examine the word processor that they used to produce it. Examining all of the audio that is produced by the government doesn't mean that you have to be able to take apart the microphone used to record it. The important part is the ability to examine all of the content.
Therefore, the desire for a free government does not lead to the conclusion that all software used by the government be free (speech).
-Sean
You think that mandating to use cheaper software internally is not "an appropriate use of government"? Are you going to complain if a corporation dictates to it's departments that certain types of software aren't to be used internally?
Do you think government departments should be run with only competitive and not political motives?
I'll feed...
mutt - text mode mail client
apache - web server
qmail/sendmail/exim - mda, take your pick
ethereal - network analyser
vim/emacs/xemacs - text editor
galeon/konqueror - slimline browser
i could go on.
all opinions obviously, but I think more than enough to beat your challenge.
And don't try to argue that none of these are "products". That would imply that nothing without a price tag has any worth. If you really think that, then i hope you enjoy those hookers for the rest of your life.
Read the article. This covers govermental use only.
Which part of the sentence below:
The important part is the ability to examine all of the content.
... didn't you understand?
By definition, this means that the content must be provided in a manner that anyone can read it.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
All documents distributet from or to other government agencies should be in open formats. That will leave ASCII, HTML and PDF formats as the only viable options. As you know, making PDF from postscript is extremly simple.
Okay... now what if you want to be able to cut & paste that document, edit it, or something else?
Well, that means PDF/PostScript are out of the running.
So we're left with ASCII and HTML. Cool. Why don't you throw LaTex in there while you're at it, or SGML?
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
As worded above (I've no idea whether it is a good translation of course) ir seems to be perfectly explicit that this must be a right not, necessarily an obligation. I can't really see how you read it differently. "guarantees the user... the following rights"
So under the GPL I'd be able to hide my changes only if I never distributed the software.
You seem confused. If you want to distribute the unchanged software then you can do so, and nobody will know about the changes that you choose not to distribute. If you do choose to distribute the changes then, yes, other people will have them - the people you chose to give them to. This doesn't seem very dificult to understand, if you want to hide something you don't give it to the person you're hiding it from - that tends to be a bit of a giveaway.
So yes, as you say, if you want to hide a change (let's generalise, if you ever want to hide anything at all) don't give it to anyone you're trying to hide it from.
Total freedom means you don't _have to_ do anything, however the GPL inhibits freedom and unrestricted use by saying that users of the software _must_ make modifications they make available back to the "community".
This is, of course, untrue. The only requirement is that if you do decide to give your modified binaries to anyone then you must also provide them with a copy of the source code if they request it. You are not required to make your modifications available to others, just that if you do then source must be available as well as binaries.
What if some country passed a law that all government institutions must migrate to NON-FREE software?? You slashdot drones would be bitching for a week. But requiring a switch to free software is a good thing??
And if they pass a law saying that spam is illegal people will cheer whereas if they pass a law saying that spam is compulsory people will complain. It's terrible, people will change their response for no other reason than that you changed the stimulus. No consistency at all.
And nothing in this proposed legislation restricts trade. It sets a minimum standard, that software should be open sourced, but there is no reason to suppose that companies inside Argentina have a competitive advantage over companies outside Argentina in providing open sourced sofwtare. At present I would think the USA leads the field in this area.
The way I see it, there is nothing wrong with a company choosing to charge money for the software that they spend huge amounts of time and money creating.
Which is in no way inconsistent with the proposed legislation. If the government is arranging for software to be supplied to them then under this law they would have to require that the software be provided to them open source. That doesn't mean that the company providing it couldn't charge them.
In at least some cases I imagine suppliers would charge more to provide software on these terms. I'm not sure why you'd think otherwise, imagine what you'd do if you were being asked to provide software to the Argentinian government in this situation; presumably you'd either charge the same as usual or else charge more than you otherwise would if you felt that by opening the source you were compromising potential sales to other customers.
People talk a lot about freedom on Slashdot. I'm surprised how positive a reaction this is getting on Slashdot, as something that takes freedom away from people and forces them to agree with the Open Source advocating majority on Slashdot.
This is one branch of government telling another branch of government what the policy should be on software purchases. Whether it's appropriate for them to do so is a matter for constitutional lawyers in Argentina, it's got nothing to do with limiting freedom.
There is no provision of what would happen if the law was broken
There must be a standard approach in Argentina to enforcing regulations on government officials. I would imagine that an interested party would obtain a court order requiring the government to comply in whatever area they were challenging. If the respponsible minister didn't then comply presumably they'd be held in contempt of court. It really depends on what your normal local practice is though. I imagine that political embarrassement at being caught breaking the law would discourage violation, plus pressure from the legislature. Both of those depend on the local political climate though.
There is no provision for exceptions, and that would be necessary (some things can't be done with propietary software)
It's probably easier to begin with to require that free software alternatives are included in the options being considered whenever a choice os software is being made. It weakens the provisions an awful lot and allows for departments to continue as they are if they really want to though. Maybe in addition it could be required that reasons have to be given for any decisions to use proprietary software rather than free software. It is weaker that way, and easier to subvert, but probably more practical.
This isn't forcing private citizens or corporations to use open-source software - just the government.
Read the law. It applies to the government only, and why shouldn't a free society be allowed to monitor each and everything that their government does? That's what this law is stating. The citizens have a right to see what their government is doing with software.
This is a *good* thing.
Linux - Because Mommy taught me to Share.
This law is very well written - with good intent behind it.
This law basically states that if the government or government owned institutions are to use software, it must be examinable by the people of that country. What a wonderful idea - one that most Americans are familiar with.
We are allowed to observe almost all areas of government, comment upon it, and change it as needed. I'm glad that at least some governments realize that this should apply to software as well.
I wonder if there is a similar push here in the U.S., or should we start a grass roots campaign?
Linux - Because Mommy taught me to Share.
I would argue that in order to have a free government, then one must be able to examine everything the government does. This includes software. Note that the law does not state the programs must be free beer, but only free speech.
Linux - Because Mommy taught me to Share.
What an extremely naive view of things. The handling of data by the government is much much more complex than how a microphone works, and besides, if you purchase a microphone, it is legal to take the damn thing apart and figure out how it works. You analogy, though horrid, actually works against your case.
If a corporation/company/spy agency places a "bug"[1] in a microphone, the microphone is working beyond its described task - it's duplicating the information presented to the device in a subtle manner and transmitting it elsewhere. However, the owner of the microphone has the right to examine his microphone and remove any "bugs", if found. The same goes for software.
Making matters worse, the government's primary job is to manage information about identity and ownership. The government knows that you and you alone have claim to item X because it knows that you exist, you are whom you claim you are, and that you've legally obtained item X. This information exists to protect your rights when someone else lays a fraudulent claim on either your identity or your property.
Now, realizing that this is perhaps the ultimate function of government, do you want your identity and property information being sent to any corporation whose software is used to manage this data?
The only sensible answer is "No"
[1] Used here as an electronic transmission device
Linux - Because Mommy taught me to Share.
Expect a US-backed coup any day now.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
I agree, that this will be the consequence eventually.
The very important selling point in my opinion is document safety. If everything is in open formats you will be able to read and edit these documents in 20-40 years.
I think that long term document safety could be a very convincing argument for Open Source solutions. That will easily be accepted by most people and a good price makes it even better.
//Pingo
--- Linux or FreeBSD, it's like blondes or brunettes. I like both. ---
This is a great step but I believe that it's even more important to 'outlaw' proprietary document formats.
All documents distributet from or to other government agencies should be in open formats. That will leave ASCII, HTML and PDF formats as the only viable options. As you know, making PDF from postscript is extremly simple.
No more distribution of Microsoft doc/ppt/xls/.. files will do the trick.
//Pingo
--- Linux or FreeBSD, it's like blondes or brunettes. I like both. ---
Point taken, but there are still good reasons for governments not to take on proprietary software - in particular, issues of national security. It is in the interest of everyone that the government's systems be entirely secure. While open-source software is certainly not bulletproof, its operations are observable. It may seem paranoid to say so, but there's no reason Microsoft couldn't rig Windows NT to send information back to Redmond. Would it? Probably not, but the possibility exists. (Argentina may be more concerned about this than us, as Microsoft is a foreign company; thus being dependent on foreign software could be construed as a security risk.) I would thus argue that it is not necessarily in the best interests of the public for the "best" product, meaning the one of highest observable quality, to be used by the government, if it may compromise security. One might argue otherwise, but it seems like a solid rationale for this sort of legislation.
The primary purpose of government is defense. Maintaining order within through the rule of law would be second. To define "the ultimate function" of government as keepers of the public database is silly.
I percieve a difference in laws promoting Freedom, and laws promoting a single given economic interprise. Drawing an analogy between the two is invalid. Moderating you up to 4 was wrong.
So under the GPL I'd be able to hide my changes only if I never distributed the software. Doesn't sound very "free" to me.
Sounds like a working definition of freedom to me.
Actually its the otherway around. We have both VC++ and cygwin gcc available for our computational physics class. The students all start with VC++, then migrate to gcc because there is no way to finish their projects and stay with the course pace with VC++.
No one is trying to force anyone to disclose their sourcecode. Just that if they don't, the code won't meet the requirements. Big difference.
As states/governments/congresses around the world realize that they can do all their computing without paying Microsoft tax - money that flow out of the country.
/. articles about similar initiatives in France and Germany.
Think about it: most of the countries in the world produce their own weapons: they don't want to depend on others. The same starts to come true about software, as it's importance in running the government/military is understood.
See previous
I think the fewer exceptions, the better, in the long run.
------
Now we have the force of the state we no longer have to make strong opinions for Free Software! Yah! Now we can all just answer the question "Why should I use Free Software?" with "Because it's the law!" (well those of us in Argentina, anyway)
You either didn't read the law or you misunderstood it.
The law doesn't say ANYTHING about whether the citizens and/or non-government-owned corporations of Argentina will use closed or "free" software.
This is just how the government of Argentina decides that the government of Argentina will use free software.
The government and the corporations it controls WILL use free software, with details, timetables, and exceptions fleshed out by the exectutive branch.
The government RECOMMENDS to its semi-autonomous units (such as universities) that they use free software.
The government places no requirements on the rest of the country at all.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I totally agree. Run the government's IT operations on open and free software, recommend it to the autonomous government-related functions, and let the private sector - individual and corporate - make its own choices (and continue to abide by existing contracts).
Although I fully support Linux and the free software movement, I disagree with this law for one major reason: the best product cannot always be used. If a commercial product does the job better, it will end up costing more to use the "free" software.
But here I disagree strongly.
You're measuring only the immediate cost. There are additional long-term costs. Costs like:
lack of support,
future higher costs ("the first rev is free"),
lack of interoperability with other departments' or citizens' applicaions,
secondary monopolies (i.e. the citizens have to buy the expensive product or agree to a company's license to perform interactions, some mandatory, with their government's databases and functions),
use of such secondary monopolies to create further monopolies, expanding the lockin
I could go on.
The point is it might be a cheaper and more efficient solution to one immediate problem. But closing in the data with a proprietary application costs much more than any immediate monitary savings.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
We ... are interested in interesting opinions about how the law might be improved, so [a local geek who will be testifying] can propose them.
This law as written is beautiful. It's a simple, to the point, expression of the will of the legislature that the government convert to open software wherever possible, as rapidly as is convenient.
In my opinion, any changes are more likely to break it than improve it. I'd be inclined to leave it just as it is for now.
================
A rule of thumb for any system design - government law or software - is to see what would happen if a deliberate attempt to misconstrue or circumvent its intent were made by the operator or outside parties. (The only operational difference between malice and mistake is that malice usually exercises the bugs and crashes the system a little sooner - so you look for system flaws as if you were looking for a way someone could deliberately break things, without implying that malice is actually present even if the system does crash later.)
The only potential hole I see is that the timetable is left open. So if both a division head and the chief executive were opposed, or if the chief executive didn't push subordinates who dragged their feet, the timetable could slip out indefinitely.
But it's appropriate to leave the timetable to the executive, rather than to try to micro-manage from the legislature. Execution is the executive's job. And I'd bet the chief executive is also in favor of this, or at least willing to go along with the will of the legislature. So I'd leave it as it is for now and revisit it in a few years to see how the conversion is coming.
If you're really concerned that something might fall through the cracks you might have the executive branch report every few years on the progress of the conversion, including a list of what hasn't been converted and why. After five or ten years if there's anything unconverted that the legislature hasn't been convinced SHOULDN'T be converted, then it might want to make changes to the law to give them a push.
(And I'd leave military systems up to the executive branch. Which I expect will insist on having source code for everything they commission, and on reverse-engineering any turnkey weapons systems they got from their allies. B-) )
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
(hope my english won't give this a 0 score ;)
But I'm really confused:This is true. Since a couple of years Argentina and other latam countries (ie Bolivia) are being pressured to legalize all their software.
In the meantime, I can see 3 advantages: huge gov. savings and legalization, GNU everywhere and a lot of people will have to study GNU tools...
and 2 big troubles: this kind of imposition can generate huge resistances on people used to M$ tools and also big pressures from monopol... tut-tut-tut
The FTAA and NAFTA do not make it illegal to make laws that interfere with with the profits of corporations illegal.
The Free Trade agreements are just aimed at allowing trade, with fair government interference. Accounting for taxes, subsidies, loans, regulations in a fair and consistent way.
Specifically the UPS/Canada Post- Puralator is an arguement of illegal subsidies (from Canada Post to Puralator) not that UPS wants more money.
The /. subject length cutoff did a fun job with that one. :-)=
I'm all for laws prohibiting BS!
[TMB]
Oops. I stand corrected. :-)=
How long do you think the actual transition should take? I'd think maybe 5 years for the main systems, and maybe another 3 after that for the more minor functions (eg. secretaries' desktops). Quicker than that would seem awfully rushed, but technology will certainly change a lot during that time. Maybe 4 and 2 instead?
[TMB]
Ignoring the relative merits and demerits of this law...
180 days to completely switch systems?! Are they crazy? Large companies often have roll-out periods that long just moving to a different version of the same software! But for a national government to completely change the majority of software they use (unless the Argentine government is already very free software based, which I doubt - but someone correct me if I'm wrong!), including the OS, and all of the interoperations between all this software, and train all of the civil servants on the new systems in that length of time is wishful thinking.
[TMB]
Does this law require government agencies to release all software they use as free software to the general public, or does it only require that the government has the ability to distribute software it uses? Does it require the government to release all changes they make to existing free software programs?
The shareholder is always right.
Folks, I am posting on behalf of the ISTF Public Software Workgroup. Our project aims in part in a modest way to provide a space for access and free software activists from around the world to network so that knowledge and experience in influencing government policies are leveraged. Our site (under construction) is at:
http://www.gnacademy.org/psip/
We are looking to network with people from around the world who would provide us with information on free software adoption strategies. We are particularly interested in reports, paper and case studies documenting such efforts.
Your help will be appreciated
Regards
S. (Sam) Kritikos
...
Is this the "affirmative action" of Argentina? Free software has been wronged in the past, and due to laws and society oppressing it, it can't overcome it's slow start without a boost...
Note: this isn't posted to flame or troll; it's posted to earn an insightful moderation.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
Point taken, but surely you'll agree that a law requiring the use of one company's product is a heckuva lot worse than a law requiring free software!
Look out honey, 'cause I'm using technology; Ain't got time to make no apology
I am always very annoyed when our government posts documents in .pdf format. The Supreme Court publishes their decisions in this format. Why? When I want to discuss a decision with someone, I would like to be able to copy and paste this public record, but can't do it from their site. Findlaw does a great job of converting this annoying format to html so legal professionals can actually use it.
And when the open source alternative to Carnivore was proposed - one that actually, verifiably, ONLY did the things they claimed Carnivore only to do - the rejection of it lent credence to the idea that their closed proprietary software was doing more than they acknowledged. Whether it is or not, the preference to hide their methods simply in and of itself invites suspicion. A government that offers to let you see their inner workings will probably rarely actually be examined.
Oops that last line should have read "which is as it should be". Sorry!
IamLarryboy,
Your post "Good Law But illegal under FTAA" is probably referring to Chapter 11 of the FTAA. I suggest you reread Chapter 11 and the details of the case you mention.
Chapter 11 allows companies to sue governments if governments enacts legislation that decrease corporate profits DUE TO TRADE BARRIERS. The last part is capitalized because I think that's the key point you're missing.
You can restrict commerce to all hell, but as long as foreign goods or services are restricted as much as local ones, Chapter 11 is useless.
I'm not as familiar with the Canada Post case as with another common complaint (the Ethyl Corp one - which most anti-free traders get wrong as well), but my understanding is that it didn't have as much to do with Canada Post being a Crown (ie, government owned) company as much as Canada Post owning and subsidizing Purilator Courrier, a large Fed-Ex-like company.
If the proposed legislation had a statue where an Argentine company could sell non-free software, but Microsoft couldn't, then FTAA would have something to say about it. As it is, Argentine companies are treated on the same grounds as foreign companies, so a company like Microsoft (or Corel in Canada or Connectiva in Brazil) have no recourse through FTAA (as they should).
'Understand' was probably the wrong word from that previous poster. 'Have the right to inspect' is probably the more reasonable claim.
The only reason why ignorance of the law can reasonably be no excuse is that everyone has the right to find out what the law is stated to be, both legislation and executive regulations.
Closed-source software effectively restricts this right of inspection.
The money "saved" by going open source would be lost in the subsequent economic slump.
Please try to think before you post. Even if the slump you posit happened, it would be temporary. The savings from license fees would continue every year forever.
And there is no reason why a slump has to occur. Just because the software is libre doesn't mean it must be gratis. Someone could still get paid to write the specialized stuff that isn't already out there.
--
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
Imagine the horror with which Microsoft would react to something like this...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Isn't this just forcing people to use a particular kind of software? Like Microsoft did (only with "free software" replacing the word "Windows")?
They're not saying they don't want Windows. If MS opens the source to windows, there's no problem anymore...
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
What the summary of the law does say is that there should be no restrictions on the use of the software, and no cost should be borne by the user for uses of the software for which normally a software company would charge money.
As for the respondents who say the law is legislating a specific software, since when is all Open Source software the same? The beauty of Open Source is the ability to change it to meet your needs.
That said, I have to say that I don't agree with a law legislating Open Source software. We should not be forcing people to disclose their sources, they should willingly give it up. Whether that will ever happen, I don't know.
Zaphod B
Zaphod B
Zaphod B
When duplication is outlawed, only outlaws will have
From the date established by the Executive Power on, Public National Organizations mentioned in article 1 of this law, will not be allowed to use programs that store data in non-public format, or with licenses which:
1.Imply any form of discrimination to people or groups.
2.Don't fulfill of the preceding Article 2.
3.Are specific or exclusive for only one product.
The GPL discriminates, explicitly and intenntionally, against commercial programmers. Richard Stallman says so in The GNU Manifesto, where he states that the intent of the GPL is to reduce programmers' wages and to destroy competition in the OS market (or any market where GPLed software takes root). Many proponents of the GPL actively (and proudly!) promote discrimination against commercial programmers as well. Whether or not one agrees with this sort of discrimination, it is -- any way you look at it -- discrimination. Against people and their products.
Therefore, the Argentine law, because it does not allow discrimination, would not allow the GPL's discrimination. Software published under the BSD or MIT X license would likely be OK, but the GPL would be right out.
--Brett
I think that the result of market economy / freedom of choice / libertarianism etc is not so much that the best solutions always prevail, but that the really bad solutions mostly do not prevail. Regardless of the fact that some libertarians may not agree with me ;-).
Cheers //Johan
Installed the Bubblemon yet?
Software that functions to their needs
The lowest bidder
... and, from experience, if you create software that the government needs and no one else has, you charge any price you want, and they will pay it- no questions asked, thanks to the "system". So, to make a long story short, what logic is there in NOT charging the government for software?
.sig
==========
Intelligence should not be rewarded; ignorance should be punished
==========
Intelligence should not be rewarded; ignorance should be punished
==========
Yeah. it conflicts with BSD-like licenses. The english translation is acurate.
--
--
Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!
The definition is quite lax, so BSD, Mozilla, and the like are allowed.
I'm not a lawyer, but I think a 'lax' law is a bad idea. The law seems to imply that BSD-like licenses are against it, and you know what happends with lax definitions, it leaves big room for corruption (I'm very tempted to say 'especially in argentina' here. ;)
That's just my impression tho., a lawyer will know better.
--
--
Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!
who?
Please, comments wanted.
What will happend when there is no free solution, and there is no budget to develope one; on a small agency with low budget for ex. (of course there is also the problem with the big companyes paying money to the politicians to say 'there is no free solution')
What about the BSD and LGPL-like licences? They can be free and non-free at the same time. Will *BSD be discarded? Mozilla?
--
--
Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!
The country was so broke the fmi had to give it billions of $ in order to stay afloat.
At the same moment m$ asked the government to pay for all its licenses and proposed a "deal".
perfect timing.
But this law may be a consequence of this m$ strategic move. People over there are very sensitive about freedom.
They know its value.
For those of you interestend in the theme, here a link to a previous /. story about a similar law already in course in Brazil.
Wasn't there a proposal for a law, much like this one, in Denmark some time ago?
--
"I'm surfin the dead zone
--
"I'm surfin the dead zone
In the twilight, unknown"
They are not forcing a specific product, but some specific rules in the marketplace. The US (or US companies) did this with processors a few years ago, i.e. they forced their suppliers to license the technology to competitors, to prevent having a single source (that's why AMD had access to Intel technology). This is a similar action, only they take it a bit further.
I don't see the problem some people are having with regulations in the marketplace. If a market economy can be compared with evolution, then regulation is just adding some conditions which prevents locally optimal, but globally catastrophic species from taking over. You have to remember that the marketplace selects for companies which are short-term beneficial to the investors, and this is rarely the long-term optimum for consumers or society.
To briefly address one of your points:
From what I've heard, the laws you mentioned were struck down because the governmental arms weren't able to produce reliable evidence that such laws were really neccessary.
This is completely braindamaged. Many of these things are not 'provable' in any rigorous sense under current coditions, so the default should be to the lowest risk behaviour, not to the most corporate-friendly behaviour. The burden of proof should never be on a government to prove the efficacy of its environmental policy, for example, but on the corporations to prove otherwise. Even in the even that this can be shown, unless there is demonstrable advantage to local corporations, or something along those lines, it should be irrelevant. IOW If a country wants to democratically institute a stupid law, all the power to them. If it hurts megacorps bottom line, too bad. Even if you believe that they are a good idea, the *only* thing FTAA or similar should try to address is if it helps localcorp at the expense of megacorp --- and even then you have to be careful.
the idea of corporations being able to even modify policy, let alone dictate it (which is a very real possibililty under some of these agreements) is evil. period.
S.
oooops i left something out of my statement which completely changes the meaning. What I *meant* to say was:
"If a country wants to democratically institute a non-demonstrably stupid law, all the power to them."
IOW, if you can't prove that it is a bad idea, it doesn't matter that they can't prove it is a good idea.
<EM>It's not like the corporations had carte blanche to remove laws as they pleased.</EM>
This is pretty much what some organizations are pushing for, though. Harm to corporations (especially outside of the country) should be irrelevant. If harm to the citizens can be demonstrated, that is different.
<EM> Um, no. A democracy should never be allowed to pass a law that tramples on the rights of the individual. Why do you think the American Revolution happened to begin with?</EM>
See above. But even under my unintended statement, nobody was talking about trampleing individuals rights. We are talking about corporate power vs. governemnts, and by extension citizens. Corporations, especially multi-nationals, have no place in the legislative process. If harm to citizens can be demonstrated, that is one thing. Not being able to demonstrate benifit under particular measures (perhaps narrow, at that) is not the same thing.
BTW, I agree that "lowest-risk" was a poor choice of words. However, you did not suggest what should be the default position. I stand by the idea that 'most corporate-friendly' is a stupid default, and what is sane is something that involves not making short-sited policy decisions based on profitibility. The track record on this is so bad that more of the same is obviously a bad idea -- an if we overadjust in the low-risk direction, we will still be better off....
What right of the users to choose? Do most employers give their employees the right to choose whatever software they wish to use? Why would you expect a government to be any different with its own IT practices?
Argue with the choice if you like, but don't tell me a large organization doesn't have the right to standarize its software.
You're the one that's confused, buddy. You're saying that if I give you a modified binary without the source, you'll be able to tell all the changes I made because I "gave" it to you. Cute trick, that.
Compare the GPL with something like Zope, which can be freely modified for any business purpose without placing any restrictions on the users. That's true freedom, the freedom to sleep at night and never worry about being blindsided by lawyers. It makes it a tool I truely own, like a hammer, and therefore much more useful than GPL software.
So under the GPL I'd be able to hide my changes only if I never distributed the software. Doesn't sound very "free" to me.
Gotta give the government something to do before they get impeached ;-)
Why are you restricting people to using GPL'ed software??? That would be no X windows, no Apache...
On one hand, I completely agree with you. Legislation is always mis-used when it restricts choice, period.
:>
On the other hand, though, the US Government is a very odd bird. I think that there are plenty of branches where it's very useful to be able to examine every inch of the code in products you're trusting the government's integrity to.
God knows, when we're talking US Govt, the open-source software they're using will be the ONLY thing with any integrity anyways.
if the United States government were to switch totally to open source software under the GPL. How many billions of dollars would be saved annually?
... instead of asking to increase taxes!
I wish the US Govt would jump on board and create a law like this. Just imagine, they would actually give tax cuts
Ever need an online dictionary?
In order to maintain an open and free government, the people must be able to understand all governmental processes (including limitations with their computers). It is not safe for any government to run software which it does not know how it operates... being able to review the source code and compile it yourself ensures security.
Also, since the government pays for all software with tax money, why shouldn't the people have access to that software? If I pay for the government to use software on its computers... I want access to that software I paid for.
Society has it embedded into its mind that "Corporations are always good, they always have the best interests of the market in mind" when that is not true. They instead have the best interests of their wallet in mind. Software companies do take bribes to modify software to suit certain people's needs... I would not doubt that the NSA has never paid MS for certain code changes to Windows that make spying easier.
Ever need an online dictionary?
Choose the best software for the task, and may the best software win in the marketplace.
Seems the reverse would be obviously bad, requiring microsoft software... I'd be scared of hypocracy if I thought laws like this were good, even if they seem in favor of something I support.
I've always thought free software would win in the end because it was superior, not because people were forced to use it... the other guy is the one who needs that tactic.
________
Executives of Microsoft, IBM and Unisys are protesting a recent Argentine Supreme Court decision ruling that antiquated copyright laws don't cover computer software. Software makers point out that royalties aren't paid on about 70% of the software sold in Argentina, resulting in roughly $165 million in revenue losses annually. A recent study by Price Waterhouse & Co. indicates the biggest abusers are Argentine federal and local government agencies and small private businesses. "There's no culture in Argentina of assigning value to software," says a Unisys unit president. (Wall Street Journal 6 Feb 98).
"Featherbeds were long ago outlawed in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Why? Because such an indulgence induces and encourages lascivious feelings."
"Public servants in Argentina had better be on the ball and smile - It's illegal to be surly."
"An Argentina ordinance demands that disk jockeys play as many tango records as all other types of music combined."
"Teachers, especially those with large bustlines, face a serious peoblem in Cordoba, Argentina. A woman simply cannot be hired to teach if her chest is big. Why? Because lawmakers in Cordoba finally came to realize that a large, shapely chest is just "too much of a distraction for teenage boys in a classroom."
Somewhat. But there is good logic behind it.
/Brian
It seems to me that if you're FORCED to use free software, it would somehow feel a little less free. Isn't freedom of choice important as well?
--
TheFrood
If you say "I'll probably get modded down for this..." then I will mod you down.
I think the revenue created by software sales is ludicrous because the vendor can leverage their proprietary knowledge to extort money from people. However, if the software is free or more preferably open source, the can charge what the market is willing to bear
This view is so close-minded and narrow, it could only come from a slashdotter
This is like saying: it's unfair for a basketball team to hide their plays, because they could use their proprietary knowledge to win the game. Here is an example of "open" security: Why not allow ANYONE to get the key for any lock ever invented??
There is one difference between a world of proprietary software and a world of open-source. A world of proprietary software gives you a choice. It's been said time and time again by RMS: "Proprietary and open source software can't co-exist".
Instead of bitching about how no-one is accepting OSS, and trying to get laws passed, why not come out with something BETTER than a closed source equivalent?! isn't that a novel idea!
if there was an operating system that did the following, it would be more popular than microsoft windows (it wouldn't matter if it was open or closed source):
1) driver support
2) nice GUI
3) standards
4) stability
5) ease of use, but included advanced functionality.
This is not a troll, I am just stating my opinion.
you're right, but I would take that over garbage
in any mac OS, where is the advanced functionality???
only in MAC OSX, which in my opinion has everything it needs to become the next popular OS, except platform support
if all you can do is correct my html/grammar mistakes, you prove my point even further: you really are an idiot. Is taht ALL you can say in linux's defense?
1) driver support
2) nice GUI
3) standards
4) stability
5) ease of use, but included advanced functionality.
This is not a troll, I am just stating my opinion.
Actually, somebody already tried that.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
The FTAA stands for Free Trade Area of the Americas. It will be in effect by 2005. Under that law, like the NAFTA, Any law that interfears with the profits of a corperation is deamed illegal. An example of this is: Here in Canada all mail is handled by a government agency. That agency is being sued under NAFTA by UPS because it interfears with their profits. This agreement(FTAA) is an attack on the sovernty of every country (except Cuba) in N & S America. This free software law would be illegal under the terms of FTAA because it would interfear with the profits of corperations like Microsoft. This is only one reason there was such a large protest against the FTAA in Quebec at the summit of the Americas.
Free trade is good.
Giving the US absolute control over the entire Hemisphere is very very bad.
I don't think it really occured to me or any of us that open-source has clear benifits for use in a developing country. The absence of fees (which is very important where your salary is twice as much as the cost of Windows 2000), and the IT benefits make free software a very viable alternative.
However, in order to utilize that development, we need yet to improve the open-source software. For example, Ximian 1.4 and KDE 2.1 which provide a self-sufficient user experience (i.e. no external tools necessary when configured) are quite slow, and by all means it is not a desirable result when computer expences are to be decreased.
All in all, it is a pretty important step, and hopefully it will open the eyes of other developing countries to the possibility of acquiring open-source software.
And the use of RedHat on a large scale is clearly not an option, and associating RedHat with free/open software isn't fair to the 'movement'. RedHat has done a number of things, especially with regard to scene they created with gcc 2.96.
I have to agree with you that RedHat is not a good distro. I also didn't like the gcc decisns thet made. However, realize that RedJat has done alot of good for the community. RedHat contributed to alot of the new gcc code. I'm personally not a big C++ programmer, but those people who use the advanced features of C++ benifit from the new GCC features. Obvisiously, the code wasn't ready for release, but those and future contributions will make future releases of GCC better.
--- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
How is this fair?
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
But that's still a debatable argument. If open source necessarily precipitates total security. As far as I know, no one has (or even can) prove this.
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
Well, as is, one could theoretically argue that the law would prohibit the use of hardware the contains proprietary microcode (since it is a form of software). An enterprising IT manager might be able to get copies of the Linux BIOS installed as a replacement for the regular PC BIOSes. However, such changes would take a lot of time and effort, wouldn't provide a substanial benefit, and still wouldn't address the issue of other installed microcode.
The easiest solution, in my mind, would be to include an exception clause (as others have pointed out). This would be especially important for cases where an open-sourced alternative does not exist (for example, try finding open-sourced firmware replacements for most hospital equipment).
the need for smaller government
yes - smaller government, but bigger business to replace the services. Great idea, sell your ownership for an opportunity at being a customer. Privatization. Great idea. Sheesh.
One of the major reasons you may be seeing this legislation is to save $$$. When presented with the options of health care versus supporting multinationals like M$ and Oracle. The IMF is demanding certain 'savings' and some wise member of the Argentinian Government has probably seen the light through the proprietary software vendors lies.
The Argentinian people are currently battling proposed 'solutions' to the Argentinian economic 'troubles'. There have been massive protests in Argentina to protect their civil services.
Have a look here for a brief about what is going on in Argentina.
This legislation has little to do with Free Software and alot more to do with the priorities of a soverign nation.
Here is another interesting article
Troll, but I'll bite. If this law was about consumers, then you'd have a point. It isn't, it's about government institutions and public (state-owned or controlled) enterprises. So it's more about openness and accountability in government. I don't know about you, but I'd like to be able to fully audit the systems that calculate my taxes, store my records, etc.
Do you really want the situation where the make-up of a large proportion of the machinery of state is known only to the private parties that created them? Perhaps more importantly, do you want those systems to be under the control of restrictive license agreements that allow software companies to basically do what they please with the computers that run our public institutions?
I don't. I shudder to think of what the future will be like if that continues to be the case.
Please, engage brain before putting keyboard in gear. The obvious answer is that government would let contracts for technical support just as they do now. In other words, the revenue stream would shift from software sales to software support.
The really good part about such a shift would be that multiple companies -- including small companies -- would be able to provide support. Small companies are at a severe disadvantage when it comes to software contracts because the barrier to entry is quite high. Support, on the other hand, can be awarded to many, many companies without harming the Government's ability to use them. Cf the translation contracts let by the USPTO.
Indeed, I see the creation of speciality companies that are formed just to meet the needs of the General Accounting Office, the legislative offices, the independent agencies, and even the entitlement agencies.
Because one requirement would be that workers be US Citizens, the H-1B problem is diminished because now there would be a place for all us older technical people who are US citizens to find worthwhile work. No more bashing companies like "a certain chipmaker" for passing over us older techie types.
It also provides a better channel for grant money to create software with specific function. If the US Government needed a Word clone, it could provide the money to fund the development -- no more waiting for Sun or Corel or anyone else to pony up the money with little hope of any return.
Gee, the more I think about the idea the more I like it. Too bad the SIIA and other software lobbies have a lock on our Congresscritters...
That's another interesting point.
There's a discussion going on about what kind of responsability would assume law breakers. Several lawyers have told us it's a quite complex issue.
I'm interested in your opinions
It's an interesting proposal to add to the law, the requirement of the use of standard public formats. That would avoid the problem you wrote about.
sorry, I did the translation, and my English is not perfect. I'm posting a copy of the original law (spanish)
Remember not ALL non Open software is bad. It is always bad when you're worried about technological independence, control of your own information, and national security.
what the consequences would be?
The open format solves part of the problem. Even if your closed app uses an open format, you have no way to guarantee that it doesn't sends your data to a third party, or has an unwanted backdoor
Then do it! If you think you live in a free country then participate in the process of government... Join with people with the same interests, and try to contact your representatives. Democracy isn't just about voting every four years, you can participate more directly.
It would be great news to know that something like this is being proposed at the USA
The law says that the license must allow the user to be able to redistribute the software under the sme license [but not necessarily force it]. i.e., BSD license is allowed by the law
- There is no provision of what would happen if the law was broken
- There is no provision for exceptions, and that would be necessary (some things can't be done with propietary software)
Among others5+5 years seem proper to me... I prefer it being done well, than hurried.
Federico Heinz, founder of the "Fundacion Via libre", and member of the local LUG (GrULiC)
What will happend when there is no free solution, and there is no budget to develope one; on a small agency with low budget for ex. (of course there is also the problem with the big companyes paying money to the politicians to say 'there is no free solution')
There is a proposal of creating and organization that would grant special permissions to use propietary software when there are no other choices
What about the BSD and LGPL-like licences? They can be free and non-free at the same time. Will *BSD be discarded? Mozilla?
The law includes a definition of "free", so it's quite clear what is free and what is not. The definition is quite lax, so BSD, Mozilla, and the like are allowed.
Yes it is. it is libre (free speech). Several times is not gratis (free beer). But that's not a news flash, RMS, keeps saying that since '83.
Read the article, you're ignoring one extra layer of indirection.
The law gives 180 days to decide how long the transition will take (and that decision could be "a century", for example). That period is also to decide how it will be done (the plan).
There seems to be a confusion about this.
The law states that software used by the state must be Free Software
That means, it doesn't disallow a propietary, profit-based software industry. It just limits the range of applications that the National Administrartion can use. This would benefit the state (perhaps a reduction of software costs, but more probably, improve quality and security, and avoid technological dependence)
Artículo 1: La Administración Pública Nacional, los Organismos Descentralizados y las Empresas donde el Estado Nacional posea mayoría accionaria emplearán en sus sistemas y equipamientos de informática, exclusivamente programas (software) libres.
Artículo 2: Entiéndese por programa (software) libre aquel cuya licencia de uso garantice al usuario, sin costo adicional, las siguientes facultades:
Artículo 3.- El programa fuente de cualquier programa libre debe constituir el recurso primario empleado por el programador para modificar e inspeccionar el mismo. Por lo tanto ningún programa que se categorice como libre puede contener cualquier restricción que dificulte su acceso, como tampoco debe poseer etapas intermedias tales como salidas de un pre-procesador o traductor propietario o no libre.
Artículo 4.- Las licencias de los programas libres que sean utilizados por la Administración Pública Nacional, los Organismos Descentralizados y las Empresas donde el Estado Nacional posea mayoría accionaria deberán, en todos los casos, permitir en forma expresa, modificaciones y trabajos aplicados, así como la distribución irrestricta de estas aplicaciones en los mismos términos que la licencia del programa original.
Artículo 5.- El Poder Ejecutivo reglamentará en un plazo de ciento ochenta días, las condiciones, tiempos y formas en que se efectuará la transición de los actuales sistemas instalados hacia los programas libres que se caracterizan en los artículos 1 a 4, y orientará en tal sentido las licitaciones y contrataciones futuras de programas de computación (software) realizadas a cualquier título.
Artículo 6.- A partir de la fecha límite del plazo de transición que establezca el Poder Ejecutivo, los Organismos Públicos Nacionales indicados en el artículo 1 de esta ley, no podrán emplear programas que almacenen sus datos en formatos no públicos, o cuyas licencias:
Artículo 7.- Una vez finalizada la fase de transición, cuya duración será reglamentada por el Poder Ejecutivo Nacional, de acuerdo a lo previsto en el artículo 5 precedente, solamente podrá ser efectuada la contratación y utilización de programas de computación libres.
Artículo 8.- Invítase a las Universidades Públicas Nacionales, a los Gobiernos Provinciales, y Municipales y al Gobierno Autónomo de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires a adherir a esta iniciativa .
Artículo 9.- Comuníquese al Poder Ejecutivo Nacional.
The translation is accurate. It doesn't conflict with the BSD definition, please, read well.
The article says that the license must grant the right (not obligation) to redistribute modifications under the same license of the original program.
So, a BSD license grants me the right (i.e if I want; that's a right for) to redistribute modifications under a BSD license. Therefore, is allowed by the law.
There's a meeting next week with the congress commission discussing this law and a a local geek was invited to give advice. We (we=people that has promoted this law and is trying to move it forward) are interested in interesting opinions about how the law might be improved, so he can propose them.
Please, comments wanted. Let's hack a bug-free law together!
Thanks,
Daniel (TrixX)
This says that use must be unrestricted in the license agreement, does this mean that the government there cannot use GPL'd software as, indeed, it imposes as much on individuals using the software as something like the MS EULA. Total freedom means you don't _have to_ do anything, however the GPL inhibits freedom and unrestricted use by saying that users of the software _must_ make modifications they make available back to the "community". At a recent North Carolina Infragard meeting, I got to talk to one of the top people in InfoSec at the CIA, and they won't even _touch_ GPL'd software, because they have to modify everything, have to follow the law, and 90% of the time can't make anything known publicly about what exact modifications they have made. In other words, governments need the ability to keep their secrets secret, and something like the GPL could be the death of them, and most of the time, they won't even get involved.
--
Hey! You're right! If my government buys weapons with my tax-money, why don't I have the right to use those weapons? Where's my tank?
The reason countries such as Argentina and India love free software is because it's cheap. Compared to many western countries, items in general are cheap. In many countries, one can either pay $500 for a copy of MS Office or hire someone at a decent salary for a year.
I knew someone from India who made more as an intern in the US than his father did as an Engineer in his native country. His father could take his family eating out every night if desired, yet his son lived in a [legitamite] shared home with eight others, barely making it along.
On one hand, you have companies that love foreign countries such as China for their labor. Remember the stories about a certain famous shoe manufactuer that makes their shoes abroad for $20 but sells them in the United States for $150? Companies love those types of deals. But other companies then try to sell their products in the local markets at US rates. For some reason, people making the equivalent of US $20 per month are not happy paying $500 for a computer, $500 for each program needed, etc. You've got to wonder why there are problems...
Actually, the translation is very good. The only error I remember seeing was "adaptate". I was just taking advantage of an easy opportunity to make a joke. US President Bush has a habit of using words that don't exist in English, and "adaptate" is exactly the kind of error he keeps making. The difference is that English is his mother tongue, and he should know better.
include $sig;
1;
Use of the internal working, and of arbitrary segments of the program, to adaptate them to user needs
Looks like President Bush was involved in the process.include $sig;
1;
Where would the tech support come from? The goverment would have to figure out a way to hire knowledgeable people to deal with this free software in a secure, dependable manner. The government can't do this BECAUSE of tax cuts. I think the need for smaller government outweighs the need to play around with free software.
Would you rather have IBM technical support and hardware behind your data, or a person who was hired as a park ranger but got pushed into a computer job because of budget cuts? A person who thinks that running a standard RedHat install as high-priority high-security server is OK? Heh.
You said it...
It is not safe for any government to run software which it does not know how it operates
That's why they let big iron companies like IBM help them do it.
It's a joke to think that a park ranger or a 10 pt. veteran that was pushed into a computer management job because of government budget slashing is going to look at the source code. We'd have RedHat base installs running on crucial servers, without patching, leaking sensitve data to the world.
As for people having access to the software, what do you expect? That they let you stop by the office to use Word? You payed for governmental vehicles too, do you expect you should be able to drive them?
Corporations may not always be good, but they get the job done better than a stripped to the bone government who can't pay IT people a decent wage can!
No, no, no. It should not in any way be OK for federal, state, local governments to use computer software which, at the very least, produces documents that are only viewable or usable by those who have, let's say, Windoze on them.
Anything that any public service entity produces, from informational documents to forms, which is presented in an "e-format" should be in a format that ANYONE can view and use regardless of OS or CPU. The government's job is NOT to serve the best interests of M$, but to serve the best interest of the citizens to which they are beholden. Open standards (REAL, not "de facto" standards) that ANYONE with a standards-compliant browser, wordprocessor, or what-have-you, should be able to painlessly view or use these documents.
The best way to ensure this IS to use opensource at best, or, if you MUST use closed source sh*t like windoze, then anything presented to for public consumption should be REQUIRED to be in open format. HTML(true, HTML, not HTML with M$-specific extensions), XML (TRUE XML), java (TRUE java, not C# or M$Java).
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
Why should my government use my tax dollars to buy software when there are viable open-source alternatives? Seems like the Argentine government has a great policy in the making. And it will encourage technology growth in IT that is not dependent on foreign corporations. (Seems like a good plan for any non-US government for that reason alone.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
--- -- - -
Give me LIBERTY, or give me a check.
The way this article is described by the submitter and poster, the law appears to force all software to be Free Software, which I totally disagree with.
As a law that would force only the government to use Free Software, which would give the government and the people full knowledge of the workings of important government software, I think it is very reasonable.
This doesn't make any sense. From what I've read so far, it seems as if the Argentine government wants all rights to the software, regardless, in addition to the right to take away rights and further distribute it. If this is so, it completely fails to recognize the purpose of free (libre) software. The purpose isn't so it is libre y gratis to some third party, which can in turn sell it or give it away with fewer liberties; in fact, the purpose is the exact opposite. However, it seems (from the wording at least, in both Spanish and English) that this is exactly what would happen were this law to be passed.
Secondly, what makes Argentina think it can take something not theirs and release it under the GPL, a license which would most obviously be different than the license chosen by the author. Let's not forget that the author wrote the software, and should have control over the software he wrote. Giving the government the right to distribute software as it sees fit is a load of crap, unless it was written by the government.
Now, if I wrong, please feel free to correct me. And I'd certainly be glad to be wrong in this case.
How exactly would this prohibit BSD-licensed softare? The whole point of the BSD license is that you can do whatever you want with software released under it provided you give proper credit to the author. The the BSD license does, in fact, gaurentee free distribution, does it not? So free, in fact, you can choose not to distribute it at all (can we say Microsoft?).
I bet our good old buddy Jim Alchin will be REALLY HAPPY!!! ... I sure know I will be.
samrolken
As opposed to consultants getting paid to provide software, and they then refuse to debug without extensive further payments, or even go out of business, leaving the govt with a horribly expensive piece of junk that is impossible to fix or upgrade.
Happens all to often *sigh*
But I guess that would be too much work for a government. That would put too much responsibility in the hands of people with a chance of knowing what they are doing. Better to adopt a policy of all free software, or all Microsoft, or all Ada, and remove all freedom of choice. That way no one is able to make a good decision, err, I meant, no one is able to screw up.
I do have a question, though. Suppose (say for interoperability, because of evil closed document formats) the only possible word processor is MS Word. Now, Linux is a viable alternative to MS Windows, and hence mandated. Does the choice of MS Word mean they have to run MS Windows (pretend that there is no way to run Word from Linux), or will they run Linux and give up Word?
I've seen this situation before. A company standardizes on WordPerfect, but the secretaries have Word as well so they can deal with outside documents. They just change word processors based on what they're working on (actually, they only use Word, because they like it better, but don't tell anyone, that's their secret). I'm not sure how it would work if they had to reboot to switch word processors. Anyway, for a company this works great. They might lose business if they couldn't send or receive Word documents. For governments this isn't a concern; they can just serve their citizens less efficiently. It's not like the citizens have another choice.
Even Slashdot wants to hide some things
...the previous laws. Get rid of the bad IP laws and the problem will disappear.
When I first saw the title I thought that the law may have covered all software used in a country, not just for the government. Luckily, it was just the government changing, leaving the consumer the right to choose. Although I fully support Linux and the free software movement, I disagree with this law for one major reason: the best product cannot always be used. If a commercial product does the job better, it will end up costing more to use the "free" software. In the end I believe that free software will be used by a majority of people, but not because of some law, but because free software will be a better product. Capitalism will sort out the winners from the losers.
Are you assuming that companies even attempt to secure all of their boxes. You really only need to secure to machines that are exposed to the internet (and sometimes not even those machines if port forwarding is used on a firewall.
Jonathan
While I like the idea of free software and open source, I think this argument is heading off at a tangent. Its not the client that matters, Its the file format. If you have an open file format that can be read by any client, and can be supported by future versions, open or closed, then you have a lot more value. You are not dependant on any one company. You have no problems with version inconsistancy, and any time you dont like the current client, you can make or acuire another. Without haveing to convert your records and archives. The second point about open file formats is in archiving. The whole digital darkage argument is based on closed file formats that go out of fashion and thus doom the data held in them to death. If the whole of argentinias data is in open formats that stand the needs of time, they will have a much more reliable historical record than contries that depend on data in closed formats. So my argument is that argentinas govenment should standardise and open the file formats first and worry about the software to handle it second. Everyone knows how fast software changes... open software has alot of benefits. But open storage formats and especialy open exchange formats will be the most valuable gifts that anyone can give to future generations. Think XML, or any of the other open exchange formats. If they are not good enough then make them so... Delor
"... every time I open my mouth some of my stupid escapes!"
One of the biggest ideals of free software is CHOICE. This whole law or passage would be a contradiction to what free software is actually about.
This certainly shouldn't be considered a win for free software because it doesn't respect the values thereof. All it is is force-feeding.
Merit of software may be heightened by it being fiscally burden free. Yeah, and so what? Is that the only thing that matters? (That question doesn't even deserve an answer these days -- ever gone a few minutes without thinking about money?) This whole thing seems silly to me.
mwtr / THIS SIG HAS BEEN PRAYED OVER AND MAY BE USED AS A POINT OF CONTACT (ACTS 19:12)
..software with a license of use that guarantees the user, without an extra fee, the following rights: ...
5. Modification of the program, and free distribution of the modifications and the resulting new program, under these same conditions.
That's a sticky phrasing; perhaps it's partly the translation. Does this mean that the user has the right to free redistribution, or that the license must guarantee free redistribution?
It it's the latter, this law would seem to prohibit BSD-style licenses, which allow users to redistribute the software with proprietary modifications. I'd say that would cross the line into ideological crusading inappropriate for a government...though I doubt that's what they intended.
Is the original Spanish available, and can somebody understand it well enough to clarify?
IT works in argentina are almost at slave level.
All state dependencies have 4 licenses of each software and 100+ working boxes.
the end user in all those dependencies have too little experience with software so the new training is no cost at all, ( I certainly can imagine all the dark business politicians could do with this).
forget all about corporate licenses, end user agreements, official technical support. all is done internally by some guy called "el Técnico", a high qualified (self trained), big-ego, linux-lover+win-user, 21-30 years old employee.
you don't get a job into the goverment or any state dependencies by your profesional skills, you must have a friend or a relative in a high position; and IT workers have 3 months contracts, any suggestion about legalize software or innovate means you are looking for another job, unless it comes from upstairs, or by a federal law.
I think this law is intended to be aware of "Software Legal" a witch-hunting enterprise backed by Mocosoft, SirMantec, AutoDisk and other major software companies (local and foreign); who is making a big cleaning in the middle and small enterprise.
but who knows... this country is bizarre 24/7
I feel compelled to enter this fray.
I think the prospect of the US ever using free software is slim to none, however it is do-able.
To answer where technical support would come from, the free software vendors and others who integrate solutions. We do not have to use Linux either, there is plenty of free industrial strength BSD flavors around.
Scalability is often a problem when it comes to free software, so the paradigm 'use free software wherever ~possible~ would prevent total free software dominance.
I think the revenue created by software sales is ludicrous because the vendor can leverage their proprietary knowledge to extort money from people. However, if the software is free or more preferably open source, the can charge what the market is willing to bear.
Speaking of IBM, they have several initiatives that are based on free/open software, and I'm looking forward to seeing the integrated solutions they provide.
And the use of RedHat on a large scale is clearly not an option, and associating RedHat with free/open software isn't fair to the 'movement'. RedHat has done a number of things, especially with regard to scene they created with gcc 2.96.
As far as the economy goes, more people with better software is preferred. I think vendors have to be more interested in the supportability and usability of free software, the ones that cost a lot tend to care only about getting that next version out the door and 'service packing' it.
Legalize the constitution. Think for yourself question authority.
System migration is not a step to be taken lightly, and it's hard to get it right. Although abundantly aware of its problems, FAA is still running code that may be older than you are, and they've already aborted deployment of two modernized air traffic control systems.
Like many corporations, government agencies are addicted to software custom-built in-house. In some cases they already own the source code. If they need something changed, they just give their IT contractors a task order.
Even compared to most corporations, government agencies seem to have a lot of inertia. Even if such a law could get through Congress despite M$ lobbying, many agencies would apply for exemptions, adding a paperwork burden to the technical burden.
I used to work as a contractor at a government agency. Our government boss was pretty enlightened and let us use Linux on our desktop machines. However, we didn't even use Apache for the public web server because of various migration difficulties.
Lowest-risk behavior means not getting out of bed in the morning. Actually, lowest-risk behavoir means not sleeping in a bed because you might fall out.
Everything operates on the idea of acceptable risk. It's why you're allowed to drive on the Interstate twice a day to get to and from work. It's why child-proof medicine bottles don't need a band saw to open
Besides, this is moot. The corporate argument is that the laws in place were too much effort for too little gain. They made this argument to an international body with equal representation from the USA, Canada, and Mexico. They agreed with the argument. It's not like the corporations had carte blanche to remove laws as they pleased.
"If a country wants to democratically institute a stupid law, all the power to them."
Um, no. A democracy should never be allowed to pass a law that tramples on the rights of the individual. Why do you think the American Revolution happened to begin with?
Of course, if you WANT to support laws like the DMCA and UCITA...
Setting a "default position" like that can be kind of tricky, since it requires predicting the future, and books-worth of legal-ese. IMO, it's better to be a little vague and let the courts decide on a case-by-case basis as they come up.
Wealthy land-owners in the US still don't want to pay taxes. However, they at least have the option to bitch and moan to Congress. No such luck with Parliament, since they ain't constituants.
"-- and (probably more importantly) were angry at being treated as 2nd (or third) class by the european aristocracy."
Well, we WERE second-class citizens. Have you ever sat down and had a look at Mercantileism?
"Oh, I see. You actually believed their PR machine.."
Oh, and you forgot "idiotic anti-manufacturing laws that dictated that we have to pay outrageous shipping costs for almost anything."
Yeah, right... the US government REALLY wants to do business with Cuba. The whole 40-year-embargo thing is just a front.
"This is the situation. The investor rights provisions in the FTAA grant corporate interests broad-based rights to sue over government regulation and government delivery of services."
Only if the government unfairly favors a local corporation over an international one. The Argentine law doesn't say "no American software," it just says "no closed-source software." If the former were the case, they'd be up a creek without Mozilla (for example).
"If regulations relating to occupational and health standards can be struck down by lawsuits from these legal fictions,"
From what I've heard, the laws you mentioned were struck down because the governmental arms weren't able to produce reliable evidence that such laws were really nessecary.
"then how do we believe that such a law by the Argentinian government will stand?"
Because the law is about how the software is written, not who wrote it.
"In Canada, UPS is suing our government over the services provided by our national postal agency."
As I mentioned in an earlier post, UPS is suing because Canada Post appears to be giving preferential treatment and pricing to Canadian corporations (like Purolator). If UPS really wanted to go after a government postal service, they'd try to sue the USPS, to which pales Canada Post by comparison. But they're not suing the USPS because they have yet to quote different postages to FedEx (or anybody else, for that matter) than they have to UPS.
"We have no control over the outcome of this, because we surrendered much of our sovereignty by signing NAFTA."
I fail to see what corporations have to do with national soverignty, unless you're talking about a socialistic system.
"And for what? Trade with American nations other than the current signatories to NAFTA amounts to less than one percent of our trade. We gain nothing and lose much from this deal. "
That's because the FTAA isn't operational yet. If you want to make comparisons, you'll have to stick with the mostly-operational NAFTA. After NAFTA, Mexico supplanted Japan as our #2 source of imports (Canada' still #1). Anybody who remembers anything about the 80's and early 90's should realize just how big a drop that is for Japan, while I don't think I've even seen the phrase "Hecho en Mexico" until recent years.
The idea of FTAA is to increase the trade with the rest of the hemisphere, just like we have with Mexico.
"The FTAA is about unrestrained corporatism."
You must be seeing something I'm not, because from where I'm sitting, the SEC doesn't seem to be going anywhere any time soon.
Having no knowledge of Argentinian laws, I cannot comment on specifics. However, all I can recommend is that every word of every sentence of the law is thoroughly checked. Does anyone know a link to a site with Argentinian laws? I have thought about this for a while and would agree with the lawyers that it is a complex issue. But of course I'm no lawyer.
Just my $0.04 (adjusted for inflation)
What happens when the law is broken?
Just my $0.04 (adjusted for inflation)
Remember, the software industry in the US has enough clout to get laws passed in its favour - and to block laws it doesn't like. And in such a case it'd be certain to use it.
Heh, then as soon as they enter work market they will hate to switch back either to VC++ or some other commercial unix compiler.
The only way liberals win national elections is by pretending they're not liberals.
You would be out of you job.
Simple as that.
The only way liberals win national elections is by pretending they're not liberals.
I wonder if Goverments can sue corporations for putting up trade barriers.
Many argue that DVD regional coding is just a system designed for putting up artifical trade barriers.
Could the FTAA stop that?
"In order to maintain an open and free government, the people must be able to understand all governmental processes" Like the way the people of the US understand the 2,000 pages of the IRS code plus the 12,000 pages of regulations? Or, like the way the people of the US understand the 110,000+ pages of Medicare regulations? Just wondering ...
sh*, I posted as an ac...
/me feels like a great stupid.
/sergio
hi, I'm from argentina, some things to say: - this seems like a dream come true, but I will not hold my breath (more below) - this country is economically so f* broked, that we had to ask the FMI money every week, and more money we ask, the double more money we debt, the triple we had to pay taxes (the geometrical increment is due to corruptions in gov). - in a country so broked economically, I always wondered why the governament spend millions of dollars in microsoft software (specially in the server arena), AND i know they spend millions dollars, because I worked in gov.ar for two years. - you simply cannot believe how so low is the IT knowledge in gov.ar, in my work I had to demostrate how linux can work flawlessly meanwhile they have tryed *for one year* to make NT work without hitchs. - most IT gov.ar staff are just politicians friends, they are choosen for friendlyness not by talent. - I sincerely hope this law passed his way, but I fear ms will play "tentation island" with a lot of people that this law may never see the ligth. - I'm currently unemployed (well, I'm not alone, 20% people here are unemployed), so if the governament want to train some monkey staff, "billy, don't loose my number" :-) /sergio
hi, I'm from argentina, some things:
:-)
- this seems like a dream come true, but I will not hold my breath (more below)
- in a country so broked economically, I always wondered why the governament spend millions of dollars in microsoft software (specially in the server arena), and *I know* they spend millions dollars, because I worked in gov.ar for two years.
- this country is economically so f* broked, that we had to ask the FMI money every week, and more money we ask, the double more money we debt, the triple we had to pay taxes (the geometrical increment is due to corruptions in gov).
- you simply cannot believe how low is the IT knowledge in gov.ar, in my work I had to demostrate how linux can work flawlessly meanwhile they have tryed *for one year* to make NT work without hitchs, and they still use DOS clipper for their enterprise datawarehouse, togheter with win95 file sharing so the data is "at your fingertips", enabling a new era in the network productivity environment.
- I sincerely hope this law passed his way, but I fear ms will play "tentation island" with a lot of people that this law may never see the ligth.
- I'm currently unemployed (well, I'm not alone, 20% people here are unemployed), so if the governament want to train some monkey staff, "billy, don't loose my number"
/sergio
I think it's a very smart move..It's just a matter of usability, costs and brain...that way people will be able to really apply their potential to open source software and help to end the OS monopoly.. It won't be easy to defeat the power of the Imperalism, but there is enough energy behind the Open Source Movement to make changes happen.
Although I'm personally 100% into the whole free software movement, making it mandatory in the US is simply NOT feasable. Free software would put millions out of employment. Sure, programming for fun and giving away your stuff is good and all, but people DO need to make money somehow. Instead of free software, maybe people should try to get the FCC phone taxes removed.. Thats a rip-off and a half right there.