Slashdot Mirror
Campaign for Free Software in the Bundestag
mpawlo writes: "According to Swedish IDG.se, the president of Microsoft Germany is outraged over the Bundestux campaign. The campaign aims to put Linux in the Bundestag (German Parliament). He has sent a letter to the campaign workers - some of them members of the German parliament - stating that Microsoft is not a threat to democratic values (as argued by the campaign). Kurt Sibold also states that the only thing achieved through the campaign is a public slander of Microsoft." Also reported by the Register, if you prefer English.
This is a translation of the open letter from Microsofts German Head, Kurt Siebold. I am native German, excuse the bad english, if i got things wrong, its my fault and not my intention:
Translation:
Dear Sirs,
i address you with this open letter in your function as the first signers of the werk21 ( the originators of the campaign ) campaing www.bundestux.de. With some astonishment i noticed that you share the opinion that ".. the introduction of a free operating system in the german bundestab ( the german parliament ) would be a necessary signal for reasons of competitve policy, national policy and democratic reasons."
In your declaration you claim that it is necessary to use democratic rules in the use of IT as well and you conclude that therefore ".. it would almost be the duty of a democratic country to use free software".
I conclude from that, that a country that does not use Linux must be undemocratic or at least does not fulfill its democratic duties.
Well, there may be understandable pragmatic reasons to vote for the use of open source software, though you will understand that from my point of view i have equally understandable pragmatic reasons to think that better reason exist to suggest the use of Microsoft products for the Bundestag.
But what does the decision for or against a operating system have to do with "democratic rules" or "duties of a democratic country" ?
Open source software is, as you mention, not in itself a guarantee for free competition, as well as a decision for products from my company ( Microsoft ) at this time, as well as in the past, is not and must not be a "undemocratic" decision. As the first signers you pressure members of the parliament to create real competition by making a decision for open source software as the only alternative.
What you do with your support for this campaign is a public discrimination of our products ( Microsofts) and services to be a hinderance ? to democracy. As my 1300 co-workers in germany feel with such claims, i was able to learn from numerous e-mails. The impact this has for our partners, uncounted small and medium-sized software companies and with our clients, who do not feel limited in their understanding of democracy, i can only imagine.
Therefore i apell to you: Let us, in the interest of a best solution for the staff of the parliament, return to a pragmatic discussion. I dont mean with that, that a discussion is only pragmatic if it results in a decision for microsoft products. It should though, be based on an assessment of cost and ability of the products and services in the light of the needs of the users.
yours sincerely,
Kurt Siebold, Microsoft Germany