Slashdot Mirror
MS "Software Choice" Campaign: A Clever Fraud
Bruce Perens writes "Microsoft's new "Software Choice" campaign is all for your right to choose... as long as you choose Microsoft. It's too bad that Intel and the U.S. Government couldn't see through the rhetoric. Read the full story at The Register." Note that California will soon be considering - like Peru - a law to mandate open source software in government. The gloves are off - on both sides.
You, as an individual, can always choose to use whatever product you want to, with a patented technology (provided you pay the royalties one way or another, of course). You can still interoperate with a free-software government since they use open standards. You can even try to convince your friends to use the same product as you.
But a non-free-software government, using patented technologies for data exchange, does force everybody to use non-free software, and pay for the "better" tech, locking out free software and therefore restricting choices for everybody. Unless they buy the rights and license them for free to the whole public (not just the taxpayers of a given country), which makes that technology free for all intents and purposes anyway.
A contrario, a free-software policy could send a message to companies: if you patent this, you can still sell it, but the government won't use it and nobody will have to. This would effectively block consumer-locking tactics. Of course it does not benefit the big companies...
In an ideal world, one could let the government use any patented technology for internal use, but not for data exchange with the public, unless they at least provide an alternate method of access for free products. Making the distinction would require IP lawyers in every public service, which had better not happen, I guess.
But there is something that Microsoft says that always bothers me.
Many, including Microsoft, state that "choice" for the producers of software should include a choice between licenses like Free Software and "Microsoft EULA Software". But I find this hard to swallow especially in this context. Free Software and MS-type software are not equivalent choices the way a blue car and a red car are equivalent choices. The MS-type software can potentially give the copyright holder great powers over your computer, your software, your information, and you personally (I almost downloaded MoneyDance the other day, until I noticed the "Arbitrarion clause" where I'd theoretically waive my right to a jury trial. No thanks!). GPL-type software does no such things.
And of course corporate copyright holders will choose the most restrictive licenses, most beneficial to them. Normally this isn't a big problem, because you can avoid the software completely like I did with MoneyDance. For a government "of the people, for the people", however, the government should NOT support any software that limits user's rights beyond copyright law, and should definitely consider granting additional rights. The government should also not implicitly support the "unsigned contract" fallacy of licenses.
Going back to the MoneyDance/arbitration example, let's pretend that you have to buy MoneyDance in order to file your taxes with the government because they won the bid. Now we have the strange situation where the government is basically forcing people to waive some of their constitutionally-granted rights in order to fulfill a constitutionally-authorized responsibility. Not good!
A quote:
Microsoft is trying to force the idea that all licenses are equivalant. In fact they call Free Software a "development model". Something that's only important before the software is handed over to the user. But we know better. Licenses like Microsoft's that attempt to limit use of the software is definitely more than a development model. They affect you every time you start the software (if you assume the license is binding, which you pretty much have to do unless you have a lot of money and lawyers).
The government should choose a license category, just as they can specify any other aspects of the software. And Microsoft could deliver GPL software just as easily as they could deliver MS-EULA software.
Another quote:
Since the copyright, etc., laws are the same for everybody, what Microsoft is saying by "choice of protections" is "choice of licenses".
Bruce didn't disagree with the principle, but I think we have to be careful. By definition, "intellectual property protection" (I assume they mean copyrights and patents specifically) takes away certain freedoms from society. If you want "strong" protection you are saying "give the copyright/patent holders more power to take away more freedom". That shouldn't be in a free society's interests.
In conclusion, I think it's perfectly reasonable for the government to mandate "limits on the limits" of licenses as part of the requirements. In fact it's necessary for them to fulfill their responsibilities to the public. Microsoft's rhetoric makes it seem as if all licenses are completely equivalent. But they're not of course, otherwise why would we be even having this discussion?
No, not like Peru at all. Had you read the Peruvian congressman's letter you would not have made this mistake. The Peruvian bill clearly calls for free software ("software libre"), not open source. The freedom-minded perspective (what the other movement dismisses so glibly) is of the utmost importance for a proper understanding of the significance of the bill. Congressman Villanueva, the author of the letter to Microsoft and a major backer of bill #1609, understands the difference between the two movements and which is more appropriate for government to back (our government included). Congressman Villanueva takes the time to correct the Microsoft representative when Microsoft tries to slip one by him by referring to "open source". I suggest you read the letter to Microsoft and learn about the difference between the two movements. You might also want to read the Slashdot entry where these issues were discussed at length.
Digital Citizen