Slashdot Mirror
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 :)."
Yow! Where can I get an informed legislator like Dr. Edgar David Villanueva Nuñez to represent me?
The letter MS Peru wrote (If I get a chance, I'll post a translation later) regarding this bill uses all the tricks we've seen them use in the USA. The letter intentionally misunderstands provisions, disregards inconvenient legal precident when useful and adopts a hardline legalist (v. moralist) attitude when useful, and makes bombastic claims about the dire consequences of even considering OSS/Free Software.
Hopefully Microsoft's rather weaker hold on the Peruvian government will allow them to get some reasonable guidelines in place so they don't get screwed like the US government.
High-speed Road Trip (18.000KPH)
The reasons he gives for the Peruvian govt. to go with Open Source rather than proprietary SW are to the point. He blasts each and every point made by the MS rep. The whole Bill is specifying the standards for purchase of SW by the govt. alone, and he uses that to cudgel MS completely.
The main points for the use of OS are...
Free access to public information by the citizen.
Permanence of public data.
Security of the State and citizens.
He then goes on to say how MS does not provide these and how OS is a better alternative. He makes it sound like a crime for a govt. to NOT use OS/open standard protocols.
The way he has used MS's points against itself and shown the contradiction between their various points was almost funny. It sounds like a school teached administering a sound whipping to a truant.
You have gotta read this....
Google cache....
All bow to his Noodliness!! His Noodle Appendage has touched me!
concerned with closed-source programs being potential security problems
Among other things, but that should grab the most headlines.
Even worse than being broken is being unrepairable. Closed source is fundamentally unrepairable by the victims.
Another good zinger:
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.
This guy is sharp.
If you say "I'll probably get modded down for this..." then I will mod you down.
From the letter:
It should be obvious from the preceding two paragraphs that the Bill does not harm free private enterprise, since the latter can always choose under what conditions it will produce software; some of these will be acceptable to the State, and others will not be since they contradict the guarantee of the basic principles listed above.
Interesting statement. Basically, they are saying that the government has the right to set restrictions as to what kinds of software they will buy and use, and Microsoft has the right to make software that meets their restrictions. It makes perfect sense, and is also quite fair.
If I decide I am NOT going to buy a car that has power windows (no pun intended) becuase I consider that feature to be a security risk, a car company cannot force me to buy their car with power windows when there are other manufacturers who make cars within the restricions I've set. That's my right as a consumer. The burden is on the car manufacturer to create a product that I would buy, or else lose me as a customer. That's all a part of free trade and consumer choice.
You may also be interested in a kuro5hin article reproducing the Hansard record of a speech by Thomas Babbington Macaulay, member of the House of Commons, advocating against a bill to extend the period that copyright endures after an author's death. He makes a lot of the points we're trying to get our legislators to understand, in 1841. Every word of the speech is just pure class. I hope I'll be able to reach the standard of argument and reasoning exmplified by this speech and this letter one day, although I'm afraid it might not be possible :(.
This letter should be required reading for every open source advocate. Put it in your own words and blast any MS astroturfer with it. This is serious ammunition folks make use of it.
War is necrophilia.