Slashdot Mirror
Requiring Software Freedom
An Anonymous Coward writes: "CNET is carrying a story about the increasing momentum that Open Source software and 'Software Libre' are gaining in Latin and South America and Europe. A certain company from Redmond WA USA is mentioned several times in the article as the impetus to free foreign governments from certain onerous licensing agreements (not to mention the cost savings involved). It is interesting that some of these governmental entities are actually requiring the use of Software Libre, not just encouraging it. Maybe it's time to visit Rio?"
.... makes the vast majority of their ca$h from US and Western Europe. I wouldn't be suprised if they are doing this as a PR move. It could be used to bolster their US case, i.e. look how we are helping the 3rd world, etc.
No thanks.
Forcing people to use software by law is worse than anything Microsoft has ever done.
They'll start switching over to something else.
A couple years ago I was a sys admin for a congressional office. We had installed a new web-based version of our CMS software. It was buggy as well, half of it because of IE's instability and unwillingness to integrate with WordPerfect and the other half because of the poor programming. It was frustrating to use and we sent numerous bug reports to the company to no avail. Other offices were having the same problem.
When did the House start taking action against said company? Not long after the House Leadership bought the software, the House tech side finally started making legal noises and fixes finally got made.
So when Dennis Hastert's office or Tom Daschle's office starts getting really fucked over by MS, they'll switch to something else, change the tech guidelines and soon the rest of the House and Senate will follow.
While one cannot pooh-pooh the vast economical savings of using 'alternative' operating systems to mickysoft's, I suspect that some of the reasons may also be cultural.
... which may not always be left-to-right, top-to-bottom, red-white-n-blue the way God intended it, US of A type approach.
Certainly, one can buy the version of the MickySoft OS product. However, with Linux, one can alter it so it not only speaks one's language, but so it reflects the way one is raised to think
Another thought is that it could be attractive because it is easier to get talent from a variety of people in a variety of countries, without all the hassle of regulation that encumbers even the most generous employer (especially here in the U.S.).
It may also have to do with the fact, and I'll need some help from you foreigner types, that us Americans want our individual PC's on our individual desks in our individiual cubicles as opposed to some X thingie who's processor ias a II instead of a III after it (unless of course you are a geek god, who is then granted a IV from the pointy heads in those aquarium like offices).
healyourchurchwebsite.com - WWJB?
...and you're sure it's not because they can get the source code for the OS, and thus embed any sort of censorship or other control software into the system w/o paying the bucks to outside consultants?
Or that the odds of anyone trying to enforce the GPL against them if need be is less than slim-to-none (but boy it would sure validate the GPL for the rest of us, wouldn't it!)
If Massachusetts can't refuse to do business with Burma, California and Canada can't ban specific chemicals and the EU can't refuse to purchase homone fed beef or genetically modified foods, then odds are, the WTO isn't gonna go for these governments banning closed source software.
t ml
http://www.indg.org/Burma.htm
http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/WTOandWar.h
http://www.zmag.org/Bulletins/peffwng.htm
- bridgette
It's also worth noting that they aren't playing by our rules and releasing their modifications under the GPL. Basically, they're "pirating" Linux.
Actually, no. The GPL only requires the release of modifications in the event that you "copy and distribute" the modifications. While the Chinese government may be modifying linux, I believe that they are only distributing the changes among their own government organization. Unless they are distributing Red Flag linux (as I believe it is named) publicly, the public has no right to ask for the modifications.