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

Scoreboard!

[Jeffrey Baker]

The author of this letter really goes for Microsoft's throat. Check out this paragraph:

The inclusion of the intellectual property of others in works claimed as one's own is not a practice that has been noted in the free software community; whereas, unfortunately, it has been in the area of proprietry software. As an example, the condemnation by the Commercial Court of Nanterre, France, on 27th September 2001 of Microsoft Corp. to a penalty of 3 million francs in damages and interest, for violation of intellectual property (piracy, to use the unfortunate term that your firm commonly uses in its publicity).

Yow! Where can I get an informed legislator like Dr. Edgar David Villanueva Nuñez to represent me?

MS Peru is every bit as evil as MS USA

[ottffssent]

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.

Overview....

[univgeek]

This legislator seems to be the smartest one on the block....

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....

Interesting comment

[TheRealFixer]

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.