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."
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!
So I'm not sure that these companies don't have a point. I would think this indicates that the government cannot extend GPL code, as the GPL is based on copyright (er, copyleft). Granted, I have but a limited understanding of Copyright Law and the legal basis behind the GPL. I would like to see this issue explained, however.
I would think that any changes the US Government (or its agencies) made to GPL code would have to fall into the Public Domain. By the same token, if the NSA were to make an UltraSecure Windows OS, then their modifications would not be assignable (as US Government works do not enjoy copyright protection) to Microsoft and would also fall into the Public Domain (just their diffs, not the whole work).
Obviously, US Code Section 17 Chapter 1 Section 105 does not preclude the government from merely using Open Source (or any form of software, for that matter) without extending it.
Cheers,
Slak
> 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.
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."
Interesting that the groups associated with Open Source are attempting to limit a states choice options in software (i.e.: Open Source only laws).
Let the market rule. Some Open Source products rule. Some stink. Some proprietary products rule. Some stink. A law forbidding you from looking at Open Source products would be "bad". A law prohibiting you from considering non-Open Source products is just as bad if not worse.
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!
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...
"Shoehorning the wrong tool" - this happens OFTEN dealing with MS. Anecdotal case in point:
The transcription department at the hospital my mother works at transferred everyone over to MS Word a couple years ago, from DOS-based Word Perfect. The reason given was to 'increase productivity'. Well, it only helps the IT productivity, because it's less for them to 'learn' (never mind that they rarely actually help solve a problem anyway, that's another story).
The point is hundreds of people were trained and very productive in WordPerfect. They didn't WANT to switch to Office/Word, but were forced to. Productivity DROPPED like a rock. All the DOS-based tools (keymap-expanders - "alt-shift-gg" expands to "gyrointestinal gerontology", for example) don't exist for Word, and still haven't appeared on the market.
By pure line-count per hour based productivity, MANY people in the department fell at least 50%, some by as much as 80%, in terms of productivity.
This was and still is most definitely the 'wrong tool' for the job, but it's 'company policy' and everyone lives with it. Forcing people in a federal office building to learn OpenOffice after learning Word would be costly, yes, but it would fit the overarching IT vision, if it was articulated to demand open source stuff.
When the 'wrong tool' for the job is MS, people still seem to go along with it, but when the 'wrong tool' may be open source stuff, suddenly it can't happen?
creation science book
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