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."
> they do mention that publicly-funded research should steer clear of licenses such as the GPL.
Actually, the GPL is how publicly funded research should be licensed. These people are doing nothing more than lobbying for an entitlement.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Basically, the taxpayers' money should be used to finance "commercialized products" that make money for somebody else...
And we all know that anti-capitalism is..communism. I knew those Chinese were onto something with their Linux.
However, this is not actually true. If a government uses taxes to fund research/development of software, the benefit ti the said government is software--why should it care how it is licensed, as long as it is functional?
notice that they also asked that research not be put under GPL-like licenses, under the assumption that government-funded research should be resold afterwards ... 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 ...
... 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, based on what they had access to, if necessary. open standards may not be the norm, but when you have full access to the source code ... even non-open standards can become so. (reverse engineering of open-sourced software, mostly because somebody forgot to comment their code?)
... the argument about taxes is weak in this case: the french government will be getting linux (free) and support (not so free) from mandrake, and they'll collect taxes back from that same company ... promote the creation of tech jobs in france, etc.
...
i'll agree that laws like this can be bad -- wouldn't want to restrict stuff too much
note that they are also trying to promote the idea that open-source = no funds, which is not true. red hat and mandrake (and many others) have shown that open source is not without rewards. note also that the french government is getting their linux from mandrakesoft, which, lest i be mistaken, is a french company
so it's not completely loaded -- it is against open source, partially, under the veil of being pro-choice
I do think that it is a big plus for many (or most) products if it is an open source one. Even if it was true in all cases, some closed source products can still be superior. There are cases and specialist areas in which development under closed source can be done with bigger and better resources, which eventually results in a better product.
I think the idea is fully documented file formats that we can edit with alternate applications.
I don't think we should legislate free software, because quite honestly if MS has the best solution for that task, we SHOULD use it.
What we should have is that all file formats should be clearly documented and have a non discriminatory royalty free, patent free licence to use in competing products. Then there wouldn't be an arguement.
As I posted over at NewsForge, I think a better approach would be to ban purchasing from companies that have been found to have violated anti-trust laws, as long as they have a certain percentage of market share. Once there is more competition and the market share is less lopsided, they can resume purchasing from the (former) monopoly.
You have to wonder if Microsoft would also protest if someone attempted to get a law passed that forbids using open source, calling it anti-capitalistic or an intellectual property destroyer or such. I think Microsoft would only lobby against something when they see a threat to their revenue. They're only interested in preventing damage to the computer ecosystem when they're the ones who would bear the brunt. I don't think they give a rat's ass about what's in the best interest of customers, only theirs.
If open source costs more in man hours (don't be foolish....you know as well as I it can), retraining and possibly hardware, it could very well mean it could cost more than say sticking with Microsoft or IBM OS/390. Cost is more then just the cost of the software. That said, I do prefer Open Source, but not necessarily because of cost.
With Open Source, the answer is always out there, usually. It isn't always so when trying to navigate a vendors website. With Open Source,if Red Hat, SuSE or say Debian doesn't have an answer for your problem, someone else usually does!
I am against Open Source only laws because I want to choose what is best for the situation in question. MySQL is not yet an acceptable replacement for a well done installation of Oracle. Also, when storing massive amounts of info in a database, I want someone to guarantee some sort of stability or performance. I want something others of used (yeah I know, others have used MySQL, but I still would not trust it with a critical database) and has been proven. That's one case. In others, well, I hate to say it, others use microsoft. Granted I know that there are word processors on Linux, but there are certain things you do. You don't want to retrain everyone on a Word Processor....ever. My point, Open Source only laws, while good for Linux and in my opinion a great number of things in the public sector, would prevent you from going to something that may be new and revolutionary. Choice between Open Source and Closed Source products should be maintained. Saying your not being fiscally responsible by not choosing open source is like giving the coffee away for free and having to pay 10 bucks for the cream and sugar. If you can't get all three (ie someone who's already there and isn't going to cost more, who knows Linux and available hardware are the cream and sugar) for free, it ain't worth it.
Gorkman
About two year ago, in a FreeSoftware presentation by Richard Stalmann (did I spelled it correct?) I have asked him if he have ever considered the possibility of liberty restricting laws, such as DMCA, affect GPLed softwares, Free Softwares or even any kind of Open Source.
He told me that this possibily does not exist and that DMCA exists to protect copyrighted material that, in his opinion should, be protected. He told that Free Software is Copylefted and would not have any risk of being affected by such laws.
Unfortunately he was wrong. In the last year I saw two initiatives trying to ban FreeSoftware from US. I know that he don't have the obligation to preview such things, but it should be better if we have more "gurus" that are able to preview these kind of problems.
About all these attempts to ban FreeSoftware from US, all I have to say is that I'm really sorry that there's people in the government that can't understand that FreeSoftware is about Freedom and this is one of the base concepts of democracy. Don't US government consider itself democratic?
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
Are you serious? Do you know what you are asking for?
POSIX perhaps?
This is a sure way for everyone to loose (money, time, etc.). It levels the playing field TO THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR. Forget innovation. Forget change.
I'd rather have the evils of MS, Oracle, etc. than the true evil that government oversight would bring with it.
I hate to say this seeing as I just got the automatic +1 score, but hey... what's a little karma among friends.
I'm kinda glad to see something like this. While I don't think some of these Open Source regulations are as bad as maybe a commercial only regulation, I still think that these are bad policies. I never want my local government to have their hands tied in choosing the most appropriate platform. Many of these laws, even if the legislators don't want to admit it are simply anti M$ laws, but they could hurt other companies as well. Anyway back to the point. I can think of several examples were using commercial solutions would save money over the long run. Basically I think anytime you regulate away choice you are hurting your self. I policy, encouraging Free Software is much more appropriate.
Business News and Resources: www.usasource.net
OK -
call me a cynic. But, this whole freedom of choice thing can't be underscored. GPL is great, if you want to put your software under it, feel free to do so. Just don't demand that I do the same. Information doesn't want to be free. Information doesn't _want_ anything. Information just is. People want information for a variety of purposes.
Unfortunately the US government is somewhat restricted from being a copyright holder, and patent holder for good reason. As if the government doesn't have enough power already, what with laws and everything... Try to imagine if they could be patent holders and copyright holders. What better way to cripple free speech and innovation?
And all this jazz about China using Linux. They're using you alright. China is not adopting Linux out of any altruistic sense of empowering the people. They are adopting it because it is not controlled by a corporation which is based in a potentially hostile foreign nation. China using Linux isn't about software - it's about politics. "Oh, look - we can get free software & brownie points, while divesting ourselves of foreign interest."
Sure, Linux may be the next best thing since sliced bread. GPL might be the next best thing too. But keep in mind that some of us still like to buy our loaves of bread whole, and slice them ourselves. Choice is good. Forcing your brand of "freedom" down anyone and everyone's throat == bad.
I can understand you all wanting the governemt to use OSS systems in building government systems. In fact, I'd lobby for that too. On a business, and social level it makes a lot of sense. But, guess what...? Sometimes OSS isn't always the right choice for the job. Shoehorning the wrong tool into doing the job is a big mistake. Options need to be considered rationally - not religiously. Of course, if you're used to kludges solving your problems - that might be OK.
Bah!
Businesses and their PR/Marketing scum have had a long and profitable history of underwriting these supposedly "grassroots" uprisings that just happen to serve the interests of the Corporation.
I was once an jr. art director at a large ad agency whose largest client was a well-known brewery (you've drunk there product, I guarantee). The state of Oregon had some type of referendum on the ballot to ban non-return containers. MegaBeer bankrolled an enormous media campaign (TV, radio, newspaper ads) opposing this entirely sensible measure, and set up a phony "grassroots" organization called "People for Sensible Container Laws" (or some such thing. It was at that point that I knew I had chosen the Dark Side of the Force.
The interesting things about this sordid episode (and the one out of my past) are as follows:
1. MegaCompany chooses to hide its face behind a supposedly disinterested 3rd party.
2. Disinterested 3rd party is a spontaneous uprising of the little people.
3. Their position is always "sensible" (contrasted with the "extreme" position of those they are opposing).
I don't have a problem with M$ opposing a law that hurts their interests; it is the disingenuousness of their efforts that really gets my goat.
With Open Source, the answer is always out there, usually. It isn't always so when trying to navigate a vendors website. With Open Source,if Red Hat, SuSE or say Debian doesn't have an answer for your problem, someone else usually does!
This is mostly true for Windows as well. When I need an answer to a problem, I never visit microsoft.com first but use Google/Groups instead.
There are millions of Windows users and communities out there. For example, CodeProject is a very popular windows developer site.
Most interestingly is Sincere Choice, created by Bruce Perens and Michael Robertson.
From their main page:
We stand for these principles:
Intercommunication and file formats should follow standards that are sincerely open for all to implement, without royalty fees or discrimination.
No user should be required to use a particular product simply because other users do. Competing products should interoperate with each other through open standards.
Software vendors should compete fairly on the merit of their products, rather than by attempting to lock each other's products out of the market.
Research Availability
The people pay for government-funded research, its fruits should be available to all of them equally. We promote Open Source / Free Software licensing as a means of distributing research results fairly.
We support a broad range of copyright policies, from Public Domain through Open Source and Free Software to Proprietary. We support use of the GPL and LGPL licenses when appropriate. We assert that Open Source and Proprietary models can be used together effectively. A number of our companies deploy software under the GPL license and proprietary software in the same product.
Individual users, businesses, and government should all be free to set their own policies regarding what sorts of software they will acquire and use. They should not force their policies upon others.