Slashdot Mirror
"Software Choice" Campaigns Against Open Source
Verizon Guy writes: "News.com is reporting that a group called The Initiative for Software Choice, led by the CompTIA, but backed primarily by Microsoft and Intel, is lobbying against Open Source-only laws in for example, the State of California government and the government of Peru. While their goals don't specifically mention open source, they do mention that publicly-funded research should steer clear of licenses such as the GPL. Interesting read."
Interesting that a group calling itself Software Choice is trying to tell people not to choose certain software.
This has been a test. Had this been a real emergency, we would have fled in terror and you would not have been informed.
This isn't a campaign against *open source* but rather a campaign against *open source only laws*. I can fully agree with that. Freedom of choice.
Stop loading the headlines.
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
While I personaly like and use open source I don't have the illusion that this goes for everybody.
What I would like the goverments to do is to define open fileformats/protocols and only accept/buy software which supports these formats 100%.
Ofcourse this also means that ALL govermental communication should use these formats and nothing else. This may not be the end of closed source, but at least it levels the playing field and should brings competition back where it belongs: comparing price and quality.
Nobody expects the spanish inquisition!
I love these guys... they're so honest. But their "principles" need some help...:
"Procure software on its merits, not through categorical preferences"
Maybe they could say "Please don't judge our product on the license agreement! Our license is designed to maximize our stranglehold on you... and if you disallow our software due to it's license, well, we won't be able to take advantage of you".
"Promote broad availability of government funded research"
Perhaps instead they could say "We'd like to package up taxpayer-funded research and sell it back to the tax payers! All for profit! Please don't take that away from us - because we'd hate to have to pay for more research."
"Promote interoperability through platform-neutral standards"
Perhaps they could say "Don't place standards on us, because we want to try to monopolize the industry. If the standards are open source, how can we lock in our customers?"
"Maintain a choice of strong intellectual property protections"
Maybe it'd be better to say "Don't weaken our intellectual property, because we spent so much money on research! We need to recover our research burden. Of course, much of the research came through tax-payer funded research grants, but we still want it all. After all, we're in it to make as much money as we possibly can, and a legal monopoly is our best approach."
And what does this mean... the primary maker of CPUs, along with AMD (ahem) which is hardly friendly toward Linux, are going to be making a 'security' encryption standard into their products which will likely be as hostile toward free software as get-awayibily possible.
Open source only laws as they apply to government information will insure access to government documents and information regardless of who sells the software. If Microsoft (and that is who we are speaking of) sells a propreitary solution to, as an example, a county government for accessing property records on line, you know for a definitive fact they are going to require their products be on the desktop of anyone who wishes to access this information. (I can see some arguments coming that governments can require MS to allow any browser to access records, but that would entail MS not being able to sell their latest and best technology, and they could conceivably tell a governmental body that it is their way or perhaps a software audit is in order? As it is now in some courts, you MUST have MS Office to access some court records, you do NOT have a CHOICE!) Open source on the other hand, which hold to open standards will only require a browser of ANY kind, or in the case of documents, some accepted standard; there are no backroom deals, no threat that MS nazis will appear at your door demanding to see CDs and licenses, no security headaches, no threats that 'upgrades will force other upgrades, and no being locked into a hostile company's proprietary and ultimately damaging formats. It is simply a means of enforcing a concept of general and free access to government through the internet using open standards, which Open Source adheres to stringently. I guess some folks love of Microsoft products keeps them from understanding the nature of open source software, and makes them see things backwards, and not for what they are. Pity...
Dawn of the Dead
If government software are open-sourced or not.
What I do mind however is if their document format are open or not.
If they are, it is "easy" to change from one application to another.
But if you have to reverse-engineer every document-type, it gets harder.
What really bothers me is the content, not the media.
I'd rather be sailing...
I agree that government sponsored software shouldn't be lisensed under the GPL, it should be opened to the public domain so that it can be used freely in open and closed source applications. If software is created using my tax dollars I want access to it unfettered even by the GPL.
-Chuck
Government employees can not copyright their work (done for their jobs), but contractors (like Donald Becker when he was at NASA) are not employees but independent agents and they can copyright their work. Similarly, government funded research is not owned by the government but by the researcher.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
For all you "Open Source Only Laws Are Bad" folks:
If you buy closed source products, you have NO idea if it has a fatal bug or security exploit, and you are at the company's mercy if you want something fixed. PERIOD.
I mean, Jesus people, THINK! What if you install the MicroBuss 5000 database software to store Social Security numbers and Drivers Licences, and then suddenly it gets hacked and all the data is compromised? Here's the quote from MicroBuss:
"Well, we knew about the exploit, but we didn't want to tell anyone until we found a fix for it. It's ready now, just purchase the upgrade to the 6000 series."
Don't laugh too much, this can really happen. Haven't any of you watched The Net? Granted, much of that was Hollywood, but backdoors are a reality. Is it really worth the risk for a minor economic boost? The answer is NO.
Of all the places, I didn't think I'd have to post something like this at Slashdot, but after reading the first dozen or so comments, I guess I was wrong.
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Why should governments (and people) across the world choose Open Source?
Freedom - Linux and the General Public Licence (GPL) frees you from the chains of software licensing
Control - You are no longer forced into a never-ending cycle of "upgrades"
Growth - Linux makes available the tools and applications that enable you to expand
Security - Witness the hundreds of Windows Security Alerts at CERT
Stability- Up months at a time without a crash or need for rebooting
Customization - immense flexibility
Lower Costs - You can control costs by eliminating license fees, and reducing the cost of your software upgrade cycles.
Linux isn't free. Linux is Freedom.
I may be bad with names, but I'll never forget your IP address
Security and Privacy supersede freedom of choice when dealing with MY Social Security number and MY Driver's Licence.
With Open Source software, the government can make sure that it's software is secure by keeping a staff of programmers. With non-open source software, the government is at the publisher's mercy. Since the publisher's best interests != the government's best interests, this is a situation we should never be in.
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
You don't think the relative difficulty and obscurity of Microsoft "solutions" should count as a cost? I think it's disingenuous to argue that installation and training are costs but hours lost to dead-end surfing or on hold to tech support are not. Let's not even mention per-incident phone support!
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Right. Without the innovation to break the last proprietary document format with an incompatible, upgrade-forcing new one, how can government possibly continue to operate? XML is "the lowest common denominator" compared to .doc? How, that the unwashed (ie. any citizen) can read it with paying the MS tax?
Thus, the source code for any software it uses should be available.
.doc files). Proprietary standards force people into using particular programs (like MS Word). Open Source / Free standards should be used, as they don't lock the people into any particular program. A standard like OpenPGP can be incorporated by anyone into their program, be it the FSF, the OSI, or MS.
The people have the right to know what code the government is using to protect confidential information, criminal records, driving records, manage taxes, etc etc. Closed-source software destroys the possibility of transparency in the government, and denies people that right.
Furthermore, its OUR tax dollars which are paying for this stuff. Thus, more cost-effective solutions -- hence open source software / free software / public domain software -- should be used by the government.
Furthermore, the government should not use any standards which lock/force people into using any particular kind of software. That means no proprietary standards (like MS
Now, regarding government development of software. In all cases, government-funded projects should produce something which is freely available to the public. That means public domain, GPL, or Open Source Licenses. These licenses (or lack thereof) make the results of government-funded projects available to the public. In regards to the GPL, it requires that you GPL any modifications. But this is a good thing. It is good that the government promote recipricol relationship communities, as the GPL does. This is in the public interest. It is in the public's interest that any software produced or funded or supported by the US Government become public domain, GPL, or covered under any of the OSI certified licenses. It is not in the public's interest that such fall under a proprietary license: that means that citizens pay TWICE for a product. Once to support its development, then again to buy it.
The simple fact that in 99.99% of cases using Open Source/GPL software saves money should be enough to justify its use. In the few cases where it doesn't, that's b/c its not as good as the proprietary equivalent, but that can easily be fixed by government-funded development.
Even in the very few (0.01%) of cases where you save money by using proprietary software, that still doesn't justify using it in those cases. Because the public has the right to know what the code is the govenrment is using (as this affects their lives), any code the government uses should be transparent.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
personally, i don't appreciate giving money to the government, in the form of taxes, and then having to buy back from them what they discovered thanks to my money ...
...
Personally I don't appreciate giving money to the government in the form of taxes so that it can be used to compete against my free market corporation.
but consider their reasons aren't just financial: in the case of Peru, they were very much interested in having the ability to fix code themselves, look through it for spyware, and write their own
It's important to note that all of these legitimate goals can be accomplished without the use of the GPL.
Basically the Open Source community has distorted the argument. If you read the Redhat proposed bill it all sounds very good until you get to the anti-commercial software clauses in Section 3, items e and f which demand that all software must be free as in beer as well as open source.
so it's not completely loaded -- it is against open source, partially, under the veil of being pro-choice
Similar to how the Redhat proposed bill is anti-commercial software under the veil of being pro-freedom?
My primary function in IT has been on the medical end. Just about every aspect. And I have used the Nixes and MS products in offices I have managed and was the it director for a small hospital. I have 12 years in this side of industry and have seen it ALL.
U TF -8&q=word+key+expanders
The problems you mention are true but are a little exaggerated.
1. MS word is a bit of a learning curve if you come from Wordperfect(which in it's day rocked). But all of those items you mentioned that cannot be done with Word, can be. MS is quite big on the Healthcare front. I have implemented key expanders for word since 1995.
No one know about google at the hospital?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=
2. A WELL PLANNED ROLLOUT.
This goes for any software implentation that is in a production enviroment such as a hospital. Have 25 percent of the staff begin to switch at first, have em use it for half a day, but slowly roll it out and ease the new product it. ANY change of software will cause downtime in production. AND all employees when switching from something known to something new create a lotta FUD. They are scared, don't want to learn something new, and in many cases they know the new stuff might bring to light some of their faults. Sounds like the hospital IT staff was a little clueless.
Then which brings me the the point of TCO and standards.
Word in the longrun would probably be cheaper than open office and easier to support because people have it at home, can pick up a a dummies book, go to New Horizons, call a friend, many venues for support. And the more widely spread the product on the market, = less calls I get because many people know it and can lean over and help their coworker.
We do need an open standard for documents. I totally agree. BUT when medical records and forms need to be sent in formats that cannot change and need to print on your printer like I look at them on my screen. Insurance claim forms adhere to a certain standard and if they are 1 millionth of a mm off, then the companies wont take em.
Then I am going to choose the most widely accepted format, which in this case is Word.
Word has an 85 percent saturation in the medical industry, and sadly enough I have to go with it but cause it will be around in the long run, TCO. I train em on Word now, the industry supports it, and it will be around.
Word Perfect has been floundering since the 90s. They actually were going out of business and Novell bought them. I have a CD that says Novells Word Perfect. The widespread use is that it has always been bundled free with systems.
This is not a Microsoft ad. As an IT director I choose the least painful route and the less costly in the long run. And in the medical industry word fits the bill.
I use Unix, I like it. I use open office. I use Office, I like em both. Office is a good product
Puto
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
Campaigning against a law which bans commercial software is not at all the same as campaigning against open source.