Free Software Law in Peruvian Congress

An Anonymous Coward writes "There is a story on oreillynet.com on the response by a Peruvian Congressman to Microsoft's letter opposing a proposed Free Software Law. Here's the translated letter and this is the original letter that Microsoft submitted in response to the proposed law. It's always cool to see governments trying to enact these kinds of laws and watch the Microsoft backlash against them :)."

Comments

spy code

[ceejayoz]

To guarantee national security or the security of the State, it is indispensable to be able to rely on systems without elements which allow control from a distance or the undesired transmission of information to third parties. Systems with source code freely accessible to the public are required to allow their inspection by the State itself, by the citizens, and by a large number of independent experts throughout the world. Our proposal brings further security, since the knowledge of the source code will eliminate the growing number of programs with *spy code*.

So basically, they're concerned with closed-source programs being potential security problems, since they can't check the code for spyware...

Is GNU.org.pe down for everyone else, btw?

These countries understand what the US doesn't.

[mesozoic]

Free software is just the beginning of the next big evolution in computing technology. When you allow every single user of a system to improve the design of that system, you bring the network that much closer to the users. You allow so much more innovation and creativity with free software than with proprietary systems.

By placing free software at the center of all public technology efforts, you ensure that no matter what, the general public will be able to improve on the systems that its own government uses. Decades from now, it is my hope that free software will have transformed into the dominant force in the computing industry. We would have a world where every single computer user, no matter what their skill level, is able to contribute to the development and improvement of computing in general.

Imagine where all this could go in another few hundred years, once every person connected to the global computer network is able to improve on that network in every way possible. It could even be the next step in human civilization.

But that's distant future stuff, more rant than reality. The fact remains that making public technologies completely free, and completely open, is what is in the public's best interests. This is the future of technology, and it's sad that Peru has acknowledged it sooner than the US has.

Re:These countries understand what the US doesn't.

[MisterBlister]

This may slow down innovation a bit in the short run (I think it won't), but the long-term benefits are obvious: a perpetually growing code repository that people can use to improve upon.

Who are these "people" you speak of? I find it rather funny that a lot of "Open Source" proponents, who obviously aren't really programmers, assume that just because the source code is available just about anyone with a little tech background can just go make some changes to have it function the way they want!! Hah hah. That might work fine for a 5 line Perl script (ie. 95% of everything on Sourceforge and Freshmeat) but it doesn't work for real-world software!

Most useful Open Source software is written by programmers who can afford to do it because they have day jobs writing closed-source software. I don't understand why so many Slashdotters don't see that and call for silly shit such as having EVERYTHING be Open Source. It won't work!

Re:These countries understand what the US doesn't.

[AJWM]

I find it rather funny that a lot of "Open Source" proponents, who obviously aren't really programmers,

Well, this particular Open Source proponent has been earning a good living as a professional programmer (software engineer, programmmer analyst, whatever the current job title fashion is) for over twenty years.

A lot of that has been in-house development, not software-for-sale, and indeed that's where most of the market for programmers is. I've also developed software for sale -- one program went for something like $10,000 a copy (mainframe software), and included source (thus fitting Peru's requirement). I've also worked for a company that wouldn't even talk to a customer unless it looked like they had at least a quarter million dollars to spend. The core of that was closed, the customization scripts were open -- and the contracts typically included source to the binaries in escrow.

But much of the programming I've done is for in-house software that there'd be no other market for even if free, the stuff is either highly tailored to the specific practices of that company, or was one-off type stuff to, for example, fix data errors in a database, or generate specific statistical reports, etc. Then there's the stuff that isn't actually programming that is still part of the job: analysis, design, spec writing, training, tech support, evaluation of third-party software, etc, etc, all of which was worth money to somebody.

If you don't understand that, then you're clearly very naive about what the real job of most programmers really is, and can only conclude you haven't been out in the real world for more than few months.

Re:These countries understand what the US doesn't.

[An Onerous Coward]

I disagree. I think that the future is a world where EULAs are no longer necessary, because the IP barons already own every human being body and soul. :)

Regarding the reason that this bill is being pushed in Peru rather than in the U.S.: Follow the money. When an American governmental organization buys a software license, it's almost always money going to a tax-paying U.S. corporation, which provides jobs for U.S. workers, who themselves pay U.S. taxes. When a developing nation buys a software license. . . well, the exact same thing happens. For the developing world, buying a software license is like shoveling money into an incinerator.

I think that Peru is right to promote free software, and it's obvious that some officials down there really understand the Linux Lovefest. But I think that if it passes, it won't be for wholly altruistic reasons. Which is just fine by me. Given the choice between wiring cash out of the country or using the money to support a system that can be serviced and improved locally, Peru should do the latter.

Uncool? How's that, again?

[Selanit]

I don't see why this is uncool.

Note: I don't know how accurate your summary is, because the letter was already slashdotted. Because you sound reasonable, I'm assuming you made a good faith effort at accurate summation.

>-the law does not forbid the production of
> proprietary software

Fine. The law should not have anything to say about how you or a company chooses to produce software. We share our code by choice -- the instant the government says "Share your code or you're going to prison," that government has become a dictatorship. Suggesting that proprietary software should be outlawed is precisely the same as suggesting that *Open Source* software be outlawed.

> -the law does not forbid the sale of proprietary
> software providing that the source code is
> included with the purchase

This is another thing the law should not address. In fact, I'm actually rather surprised about the source code provision, which basically makes it impossible to sell proprietary programs, because some coder might well take the code, alter it, and release the alteration under the GPL. So, the law actually is producing conditions in which proprietary code is *effectively* banned even if it isn't explicitly banned.

> -the law does not specifiy which concrete
> software to use

Nor should it. Imagine you're an IT admin working for the Peruvian government, and they send you a memo saying "As per law X, you must use Red Hat Linux, Apache, and MySQL." But the department you work for doesn't has no need for Apache or MySQL, so they wind up with some useless programs cluttering up their drives. The IT admin of each department should be free to choose the appropriate tools for their department's objectives.

If you mean that the government should create a list of "kosher" software that's approved for use, fine; but that list should NOT be encoded in the law itself. Laws are hard to change, but licensing arrangements change all the time. So, you create a law saying "Software has to meet the following requirements . . ." and then later you make a list of software that meets those requirements. The list can be changed a heck of a lot more easily than the law.

> -the law does not dictate the supplier from whom
> software will be bought

Man, this is getting repetitive. Do you really want management (or government, in this case) telling you the details of how to do your job? It sure sounds like it.

> -the law does not limit the terms under which a
> software product can be licensed, providing that
> the entire source code is included with the
> product.

This sounds an awful lot like your first point. And again, forcing a company into a particular licensing scheme -- dictating their choice of license -- is not the action of a democratic government.

I wholeheartedly approve of the Peruvian government's move to embrace open software -- the article I *was* able to get to on O'Reilly made it pretty clear that "free as in speech" is every bit as important to the creation of this law as "free as in beer." More power to them!

A great read

[oneeyedman]

I don't know when I've enjoyed reading a long, lawyerly letter so much. (I can't imagine that this was really written by a congressman, though it would be nice to think so.) An earlier poster commented that we have all heard these arguments before on Slashdot. Well, not necessarily. There is a big difference between advocates and insiders trading views they already share, and watching a masterful display of reasoned analysis about genuinely different viewpoints. The letter puts the official Microsoft position through the Bass-O-Matic by out-arguing it, not by shouting back or by storming off in a rhetorical huff.

If Microsoft's public statements were held to this level of logic and clarity more often, we would have a very different software market. Advertising and other sorts of propaganda are so pervasive that I think we tend to forget what a real debate looks like. This Peruvian congressman reveals just how shallow Microsoft's self-interested arguments against free software really are. It makes them look both stupid and shrill.

Good work!

You're all karma whores...

[7-Vodka]

Don't chop off the letter. Let everyone read it in full. I was amazed by it, maybe you will be too. That letter is a flaming example of lucid thinking and straight talking... and it's from a politician folks. I wish I could vote for THAT guy to represent ME here in the US. When was the last time you heard an american politician talk about this issue at all? Hell, I've never heard an american politician even manage to take an important and complicated issue such as this and state it so clearly a teenager could understand it. Let's see M$ try to wriggle out of this response (hint: you'll not see it).

Now back to the U.S. What can we do to get OUR government to pass a bill like this? Any suggestions? I'm thinking about sending a letter to congressmen informing them of how free software is starting to be used in other countries and maybe even sending them letters like these as supporting evidence.

Re:You're all karma whores...

[nmos]

"What can we do to get OUR government to pass a bill like this?"

We'll have to start by getting politicians at least half as intelligent as the one who wrote that letter. This guy makes our current congress critters look like drooling idiots.

Re:You're all karma whores...

[Anonymous Coward]

Now back to the U.S. What can we do to get OUR government to pass a bill like this? Any suggestions? I'm thinking about sending a letter to congressmen informing them of how free software is starting to be used in other countries and maybe even sending them letters like these as supporting evidence.

Don't waste your time. Like most everything else in American politics, this is not about the facts, it's about money and the power that comes with it.

Clearly, such a law would be dangerous to Microsoft if passed. And Microsoft, like any other large corporation, has considerable influence over "our" government. Thus, such a bill will never be proposed, let alone be seriously considered.

In fact, it's not out of the question that Microsoft will convince the U.S. to exert considerable pressure on Peru to drop their law.

It won't be the first time that the United States has intervened in South America on behalf of big business.

Re:You're all karma whores...

[Wylfing]

The reason you don't see this thinking in the US is that our representatives in government believe it is their responsibility to make us prosperous. So they put their weight behind large corporations with the idea that a large, thriving corporation will produce jobs, etc. and in all ways make the citizenry better off. If doing this crushes the citizens' rights, well what's a few rights when we're talking about prosperity.

This point of view is utterly wrong. Apparently in Peru they understand that the government's job is to protect the rights of its citizens so that the citizens are free to pursue prosperity on their own. Dr. Nunez argues eloquently for protecting Peruvian citizens by requiring disclosure of source code -- that way everyone can see if advantage is being taken, or if someone is being spied on, etc., and no one can be locked out of government simply because they don't have 400USD to buy Office (or whatever it costs) so they can read government documents that are only published in Word.

Microsoft tries to pressure Peru by doing the "you have to choose us so that your citizens will be prosperous" charade, but fortunately Dr. Nunez already knows that's not the government's job.

Here's an idea: print out this letter and fax it to your Congressfolk, and ask them whether they agree with it. If they do, then why are they not choosing OSS? If they don't, then why are they opposed to objectives like "security of the state" and "free access of citizens to State documents"?

Re:You're all karma whores...

[Anonymous Coward]

You can always move to Peru.
After all it must be a fucking heaven on earth with all these super-smart politicians.

Re:Scoreboard!

[Lemmy Caution]

I'm half Peruvian, and all thrilled by this (in fact, I believe I'm distantly related to the esteemed doctor), but if you think that Peru's political process is by any measure clean, untainted by cash or other considerations, or anything of a model for other countries, I am deeply saddened that I must inform you otherwise. Peru is, to put it bluntly, hell of fucked up. And the Sendero is coming back.

There are many Peruvians of extraordinary virtue and principle when it comes to themselves, but unfortunately they (we) have weak spots when it comes to our families. We may turn down bribes for ourselves, but offer nice jobs, scholarships, promotions and other goodies to our family members (or, inversely, somehow threaten them), and we get maudlin and weak.

Re:NOOOOO!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

A major difference between the GPL and most 'closed-source' licences is that the latter usually do not provide access to the source code. This is an important difference because the GPL encourages users to use GPL code, thereby spreading the licence, where as 'closed-source' licences do not.

I may not borrow code from, say, Adobe Acrobat, to use in a BSD-licensed application, but nor may I borrow code from, say, GNU Emacs. If I'm searching for code available on the web, it's unlikely I'll run across Acrobat code, but the GNU-Emacs code is all over the place.

My primary complaint is not that the FSF and Adobe won't let me use their code in my work, it's that the FSF puts its code out in the open, inviting me to use it (and thereby accept the GPL, which is a licence reflecting a political philosophy with which I do not agree). It is the deception, you see, not the restriction that I most object to. I understand what borrowing or linking to GPL code means, but most developers (especially students and such) do not.

Another major problem with the GPL is that it claims to take control if I merely link to code governed by it. I have never, ever, seen a 'closed-source' licence that requires the developer to accept it simply to link to code licensed under it. The closest I have seen are recent licences banning linking with GPL code, but this is a defensive measure against the GPL, and the developer is still free to use any licence that does not place demands on those who link to code under it (e.g. BSD, LGPL, 'closed-source').

It would be interesting to scour through academic projects to find out how many are linking GPL code with code under conflicting licences (e.g. 'closed-source' ones), and thereby violating both licences. I suspect there are a lot of them.

Re:It makes me want to emigrate to Peru!

[danro]

If you are a skilled programmer, willing to work for local wages, I don't think there is a single 3:d world nation that would kick you out, man.
They are desperate to get out of the economic stranglehold they are in.

Re:Scoreboard!

[1010011010]

I like this part:

In addition, a reading of your opinion would lead to the conclusion that the State market is crucial and essential for the proprietary software industry, to such a point that the choice made by the State in this bill would completely eliminate the market for these firms. If that is true, we can deduce that the State must be subsidising the proprietary software industry. In the unlikely event that this were true, the State would have the right to apply the subsidies in the area it considered of greatest social value; it is undeniable, in this improbable hypothesis, that if the State decided to subsidize software, it would have to do so choosing the free over the proprietary, considering its social effect and the rational use of taxpayers money.

Insert knife; twist. :)

Re:article-timesaver (slightly redundant)

[The Monster]

Everybody on Slashdot has heard these arguments, so there's not really much to read.

Yes, we have heard them. What is refreshing is seeing a government official from a South American country (which we Gringos have been conditioned to think automatically means it's a dictatorship) 'get it' far better than our own government officials [emphasis mine]:

...the state archives, handles, and transmits information which does not belong to it, but which is entrusted to it by citizens, who have no alternative under the rule of law

I wish the typical US Congressmen understood this as well.

What database(s) will they use in Peru?

[mgkimsal2]

This isn't meant as a troll - but if, as I gather, a requirement for using software in the Peruvian government be that the sourcecode is publicly available, what databases will fulfill their needs? For that matter, air traffic control systems and military systems? Or do certain elements of the government get an exemption if they can show no 'free' software exists to fulfill a specific need?

Re:brilliant

[kz45]

He made, as I recall, a couple of mentions that proprietary software being perfectly OK as long as it met the goal of making the data available in an open format

How can this be considered freedom?

As a proprietary software provider, I would be forced to open my protocols. (but this fact seems to be overlooked by the zealouts in favor of it)

If the only way the GPL and or Open source can become popular is by force (through legislation), it's not freedom in my mind.

when do the marines go in?

[delafrontera]

Throughout the 20th Century whenever a little Latin Country got uppity - and this fantastic letter by the Peruvian Congressman is definitely uppity - the US would send in the Marines or fund a dissident local general and presto, everyone was on board with the Plan again. Didn't always work (Cuba) but it worked most of the time (Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama, etc).

Now I wonder, how long till the modern marines go in? and what form will they take? Microsoft donations to Peruvian schools? Microsoft donations to right thinking politicians in Peru to counter the bill? Time will tell.

Off topic - does the US government do the same as the bill suggests when it buys software for the military? It must, right? I mean, military men don't click thru EULAs everytime they get a new ICBM control system, do they? Does anyone know about this? It would be wonderful if the administrative side of the US government would imitate the Peruvian bill, but surely the military does. Or are all those military systems built "in-house", which I can't believe...

Microsofts next move...

[Jan Derk]

Obviously Microsoft is not gonna win the argument with this congressman. He's just making too much sense.

However, Microsoft isn't stupid either and I bet they will ignore him (or call him a liar) and aim all their FUD on the 51% of the congress they need to block this bill. Chances are they will succeed.

I hope I'm so wrong.

Re:Microsoft should be worried

[Lonath]

Maybe they've overdone it and should start respecting their customers.

Or maybe they should use increasing Draconian IP laws in the US to bring the US market to its knees, then use the power of the US government to get trade sanctions in totally unrelated areas against countries that choose to use FS instead of MS, thereby extending their monopoly to the rest of the world.

Which seems more likely?

Congratulations! You just joined Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you not notice Microsofts blatant attempt in their letter to remove mention of "Free Software" and replace it with "Open Source Software"??

The Peruvian congressman actually has to make a point of not falling for it.

There is a reason why MS want to do this. Open Source Software is like watered wine -- it lacks the philosophical principles which provided such a strong victory here.

The Freedom of Free Software in terms of rights is more important than the Open ness of source code, even if the former sometimes includes the latter. I agree that Free Software can be misconstrued, but Open Source is fundamentally flawed, and the difference could lead to a catastrophic misunderstanding.