Slashdot Mirror
Tim O'Reilly Bashes Open Source Efforts in Govt
There's a tremendous difference between what government should be allowed to do and what individuals should be allowed to do. O'Reilly is attempting to blur the distinction, a common rhetorical tactic but one which does not advance his argument. As far as I can tell, his only argument besides this is that if the citizenry pushes for the government to use Free software, companies will push back to use proprietary crud. This argument doesn't hold water - every company selling proprietary software is lobbying the government all the time, have been for years, and they aren't going to stop just because we do. CNet carries news today that Microsoft has pressured the NSA to drop development of Security-Enhanced Linux. I can only imagine what sort of pressures might have been brought to bear behind the scenes, perhaps Microsoft threatened to cancel the NSA's site licenses of Windows and Microsoft Office. But in any case, there's no such thing as "mutual disarmament" - if we back down we'll just get smashed by the continuing efforts of companies pushing proprietary software.
But back to the government/individual distinction. Individuals, for instance, shouldn't be required to disclose their private papers to anyone who asks. But government should: that's the foundation of our freedom of information laws, and they exist for a good reason - keeping an eye on government is a necessary thing. Saying "People should be free to keep their papers private" as an argument against government FOI laws is just a stupid strawman, unworthy of further debate. And that's what O'Reilly's argument against California's proposed law is as well.
Governments play by different rules. They need to be fiscally responsible, transparent to the public, and promote the public commonwealth whenever possible. Using Open Source or Free Software in government promotes all three of these goals, and if Microsoft or any other corporation doesn't make quite as much money when the government alters its standards for software procurement... so what? Companies who make shoddy products do lose business when the government ups its standards, and they have the same choice as any business does: either produce better products, or lose the government's business. In this case the shoddiness comes in some of the most important areas as far as software goes: open access to the code, to ensure the software that we the citizenry pay for is doing what it is supposed to be doing, but the rationale would be the same if the government mandated a certain level of bug-free-ness or a certain level of performance for software - you can shape up and continue selling to the government or you can ship out. Your choice.
O'Reilly seems to be promoting the agenda of Microsoft's Software Choice campaign. He's a business man; perhaps there's a reason we don't know about. But whatever his motives, his lame arguments are no reason to stop pushing for governments to use Free or Open Source software wherever possible.
Come on, O'Rielly has no interest in pushing anything Microsoft. He's just saying that the government should use the best tools for the job, and not belabor it's choices with (more) bureaucracy.
Seriously, Michael, this is really childish. Tim O'Reilly has done fantastic work for the community, including even publishing some of his company's books for free on the internet, and all you can think to do is make sly accusations about his "motives."
Grow up, Michael. People can disagree with each other without having to resort to implicit "He's bought off!" accusations. It happens all the time in the real world.
If it ain't broke, you need more software.
I mean, that would allow us to post replies and maybe discuss your position. Instead, we're sort of left with you commenting from on high. Then again, I notice that the /. editors almost never post unless it's to clear up something about /. itself (is that some sort of policy?).
Still, I think you should come join the rest of us if you want to editorialize.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
If an individual wants to restrict himself to Open Source, there's absolutely no problem with that, so long as it does not contradict any previously-signed-and-still-active agreements on his part not to do so. People are allowed to behave as ideologically as they choose, within pretty broad limits.
However, there is no excuse for a government doing so. Governments are supposed to be more responsible than that -- and to require a drastic litmus test that completely ignores more important issues, such as "is this the best tool for the job given our budget", is arrogance and foolishness.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
So, should government organizations not be allowed to make *any* policies of what licenses they will accept?
Or is it just the requirement to be able to switch vendor for support and development (which is what an "open source" requirement really means) that should not be allowed as a policy?
I'm rather quite relieved to hear Tim O'Reilly of all people sharing the same opinion as me: that as good as open-source is, it should _NEVER_ be forced on people. That in essence destroys the 'freedom of choice' that is the driving force behind open-source. (hey, it rhymes...)
It is good that some of the "big players" are already thinking ahead about this, in case one day we actually do topple the big corporations (I'm not holding my breath). I wonder what RMS' and Torvalds' opinion of the matter is.
Tell that to the employees at Red hat.
Open source allows developers to fine tune applications for their clients, If I am X company I would be more likely to hire a developer who could rewrite and retune an applicaiton because its open source. If I am Y company locked into closed source I am not likely to hire a developer because what can he do for me?
There are people in Government too, should they not be allow to choose whatever suits their job best? If someone found a VB application that does exactly what they want it to do, why should they be forced to use something that doesn't fit their needs correctly because it runs on a closed source system? Its unfair.
There are lots of programs that people are familiar and comfortable with and there should be no law mandating that they can't use them. You shouldn't criticize these guys until you stop doing the same thing.
Burnt Karma keeps me so warm...
Objects in the blog are closer then they ap
Man, when I first read the article title I thought it said "Bill O'Reilly (of FOX News) Bashes Open Source Efforts In Govt" and I was thinking "Oh God, please don't tell me we're going to start hearing about 'socialized software development'!"
This ain't a very good start of the day for me (10:30a is too early in the morning for me)...
GMD
watch this
Leave it to Michael to miss the point right under his nose.
Companies who make shoddy products do lose business when the government ups its standards, and they have the same choice as any business does: either produce better products, or lose the government's business.
Sheesh, Michael, READ YOUR OWN FREAKING WORDS. Yes, that's the way it should be done. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about "affirmative action" for software. Screw using the best solution, we're going to require open source whether it's the best solution or not.
If you want to advocate that all government DOCUMENTS must be in an open format, then that's a reasonable stand most people can get behind.
But to argue on the one hand that Government should be required to use open source no matter what, while on the other hand arguing that the government should always use the best products is nuttiness as best, and idiocy at worst.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Actually, if the government were required to use only open source software, it would suddenly be possible for open source to put food on lots of tables. You may not be able to make money selling the code, but the government would need tons of support, custom development, and other services, which is where open source companies have always planned to make their money.
If you want to sell your code or your programming services, OpenSource does not put food on the table...
hmm, interesting. Are there any starving OpenSource programmers out there? If your living in seattle and your hungry I'll buy you a sandwich.
-ps Thank you OpenSource coders for not being greedy and sharing your wonderful software.
If Microsoft were to allow the governemnt employees involved, witn NDA's, to see the source for said MS products...would microsoft qualify as "open source?" The government isn't mandating FREE software...but open source software....and theoretically, this is due to wanting to see the 'flaws and limitations' first hand.....
When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
You fscking twit.
Had you even read/bothered to comprehend the submitter's blurb you would have seen that O'Reilly is advocating a non-preferential approach to software selection. He wants a level playing field. Period. He wants to avoid launching the Open Source world into the same shitty realm of back-slapping, handshaking, sure-thing-old-chum crap that we're fighting against right now.
He is not Bashing Open Source Efforts. Ye gads, why on earth are you slandering Tim O'Reilly, of all people? He's on our side!
Would you please, please, please show a modicum of journalistic integrity, and make at least a cursory effort towards real reporting?
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
O'Reilly is attempting to blur the distinction, a common rhetorical tactic but one which does not advance his argument.
Actually, he's advocating using the best tool for the job, and that zealous fanatics that insist on using Open Source everything will get us nowhere. Your implications that O'Reilly is being paid off by Microsoft are childish, to say the least. What article have you been reading?
Is your browser retarded?
However, I *do* think it's important to focus on the format of the public data. Anything that is public property should not require proprietary software to access. I shouldn't have to buy MicroSoft products to read public documents.
Looking at it from that angle, Open Source is just one aspect of the solution. Documents could be produced in text, postscript, pdf, html -- there are plenty of formats with free readers (accessors) - which I think is the important part. That way, those creating the docs can use whatever tools they feel are best for the job, but those reading the documents aren't locked into those same tools.
please excuse my lame typo. government. a large object (read: k-6 400 case) fell on my hand last night and i am typing with one hand. (save the obvious pr0n jokes.....)
When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
I have a lone Linux box in a sea of NT boxes here at the Corps of Engineers. That box was put here because I was able to code a few dynamite apps that have since proven to be invaluable to the Corps.
It was the services that I was able to provide to the Corps that mandated inclusion of Linux into our infrastructure. I was able to more with my open source tools than the NT guys could with theirs.
I would not have wanted this box here by any method.
If you believe that Open Source can trounce proprietary methods based on its merits then you need to be against mandating Open Source.
All we need is a Microsoft disciple being FORCED to use OSS and being turned off forever. That converts no one.
"We didn't fully understand the consequences of releasing software under the GPL (General Public License)," said Dick Schafer, deputy director of the NSA. "We received a lot of loud complaints regarding our efforts with SE Linux."
First i have a hard time believing that the NSA didnt read and interpret the GPL license before they begun.
And where has those complaints been coming from? I cant see any other company that would suffer from a secure linux effort other than Microsoft. I would love to know just what happened behind the scenes and how high up this went before it got ugly.
Considering the amount of work they spend on helping people to secure Windows the GPL should be a non issue unless politics and probably some very influencial people are behind this.
Its a real ugly battle and i do hope the real story gets out soon.
HTTP/1.1 400
As far as I can tell, his only argument besides this is that if the citizenry pushes for the government to use Free software, companies will push back to use proprietary crud.
Michael, you really should read what you are trying to criticize. It does seem that "as far as you can tell" isn't very far.
Tim's two main points are:
(1) More choice is better than less choice. Forbidding to use commercial software == less choice.
(2) In many (but not all) cases governments should behave rationally and use the best tools available to do a task. Very often commercial software IS the best tool. Forbidding to use it doesn't seem very rational.
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
Again, O'Reilly has missed the point.
his is not about OSS / FSS software on anyone. Its about transparency in the government -- about the people's right to know.
The people have the right to know exactly what source code the government is using to protect them. We have the right to know what code protects our privacy in, for example, records which are ruled sealed.
Lets say that your daughter's molested and a trial occurs, in which she testifies. For her protection, her testimony is sealed; if an electronic copy is made, it is cryptographically sealed. If this is done using proprietary software, we the citizens have no way of being assured that it is really secure. If the software used to do that is OSS / FS, then we can check and make sure.
This is a somewhat important example, but the same principal applies to even trivial things. We, the citizens, have the right to know exactly how the software our government is using works; at least where it pertains to us.
Obviously, military top secret stuff is different; though it certainly need not be based on proprietary technology -- nothing prevents the military from modifying OSS / FS software and then keeping those modifications secret within the division. As that doesn't really count as distribution; i.e., in house modifications are not considered "distributed". Its only "distribution" when you make it available to the general public.
That is why the government mustI use OSS / FS, because of our right to know.
An additional benefit is cost-effectiveness. Our tax dollars pay for this stuff, and in almost all cases, OSS / FS is a cheaper solution, both in terms of initial price and total cost of ownership.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
In open software's case there are people willing to volunteer to lobby but they just don't have the resources to appeal to a congresscritter's wallet^H^H^H^H^H^Hsenibilities.
In the end, something has to be done to level the playing field. Laws like this will do just that.
The big question is: Why is O'reilly doing this? Has Billy Deep-Pockets gotten to him? Or is he worried that laws like this will make it difficult for him to make a profit int he future?
To further elaborate:
The basic model of the web was to give away information, services, valuable goods, etc. for free, to anyone who cared to take them. The costs were covered by massive amounts of venture capital, money earned from previous successful IPOs of (worthless) internet companies, and banner advertising.
Initially, things went well because the web was new and people were willing to throw money at anything that had a remote chance of becoming an established player. However, we've all seen that it didn't last very long -- and now, even the banner ads aren't generating enough revenue to cover web site expenses.
The only profitable models on the web right now are subscription-based services and commission-based services (i.e. E-bay). The model of getting something for nothing simply does not work (unless propped up in the short term by someone else's money).
The same thing has happened with open source software: you give it away for free, then try to make money with consulting services, support, etc. -- which are nothing more than the "banner ads" of open source. Is there any company that uses Open Source as their business model that makes money? I seriously doubt there ever will be... Maybe IBM could be shoehorned into this category, but in reality, they are simply using open source as a way to sell more hardware and consulting services -- things they would have sold anyway if open source didn't exist.
If individual programmers want to release their source code to the world, that's their choice. But to actively lobby ALL developers to release their code under the socialistic GPL license is just morally and absolutely wrong.
I think it would be much more productive if the community were to place their efforts in getting DATA FORMATS to be standardized and interoperable. That way, products would have to compete on features, instead of allowing a proprietary data format to lock in the users.
Surely if O'Reilly followed the Peruvian campaign he must have understood that the goal is to ensure that public data remains public, and that that implies openness in formats?
He seems to skate over this and just characterize any policy for open source as arbitrary prejudice.
Openness in requirements is important, just don't forget what the key requirements should be.
I love open source software. There's a lot of proprietary software I love, too.
I don't want myself told that I have to use an inferior tool just because it's open source. I don't want my government to have similar restrictions.
If open source is better, then let it *compete*. If free (price) and open source still aren't enough to persuade users to switch, then maybe it's not yet as good as its proponents claim it is, and maybe that's where they should focus their energies.
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
It's not a question of forcing anyone to buy only open source or only closed source software. That thrust of questioning obfucates the underlying issue. The actions of governing bodies ought to be accessible to the governed and there should not be any imposition of closed or proprietary standards required to interact with our government.
Documents should be available in non-proprietary formats, and documents required to be submitted to governmental agencies should not be forced to have to be in proprietary formats. This should be a basic requirement for our governing bodies at the federal, state/commonwealth, county/parish, and city levels.
If proprietary software should have to compete to meet these obligations. The smart way to insert open source software components is not to claim that open source is inherently better (even though it obviously is), but to show how open source meets the standards of an open governing system.
Closed systems are too often present at all levels. I can understand that scholarly journals may have requirements that manuscripts be submitted in the word processing format of their choice and on the preferred media of their choice. Those are just the rules of the game you have to play if you choose to publish in peer reviewed journals. At least the mathematical journals accept LaTex. And some printing services prefer Quark files for their layout services. That's their prerogative. However, all citizens have to interact with their governments at time. And the gov't ought not to impose the requirement that anyone wishing to submit proposals under requests for proposals or wishing to submit legal documentation be required to use proprietary data interchange formats. Proprietary formats require the use of proprietary software which may cost some citizens too much. It is not just for a government to keep some of their citizens out of the game.
And this lack of justice is the key reason that open formats should be used. And the fact that open source software can best meet the usage of open formats is the best reason that open source software ought to be used.
It's too bad the Authors don't have an 'Anonymous Idiot' option when they post something.
michael, it's crap propoganda like this that makes it even harder for open source advocates to maintain credibility.
You deserve the Katz'ing that you're getting.
No man is an island, but Gary is a city in Indiana.
Uh, how is access to source code (and/or the freedom to modify it) any different from the usual list of product requirements? If propriety software vendors want the business of the government, then they'll provide the features the client wants. I certainly wouldn't want my government procuring military vehicles, for instance, without specification sheets and the ability to repair them, etc.
The details of the source code license can be hammered out seperately, or on a case by case basis, as most features are (e.g., one restriction might be that nobody but the originating company may use the source for commercial profit - which would be fine for gov).
Of course this doesn't need to be legislated as an absolute. IIRC, the Peruvian proposol only says "use open source if there is no better proprietary software that suits the purposes". Nobody is saying "use open source period, end of story, never ever ever ever use proprietary software". That's ridiculous. Where openness of code and protocols and formats is critical, access to source code is just another client requirement.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
To take a hypothetical example, what if defense contractors were unwilling to open-source missile-targeting software because it considers that information part of its proprietary competitive advantage? Do we want to put the government in the position of saying no, we can't use the best targeting package, we have to use whatever open-source option is available? That seems hugely irresponsible.
O'Reilly is right that open-source options should always be among the products considered for procurement, but to require them is a mistake. It ignores the fact that IT decisions (engineering decisions in general) entail tradeoffs -- between functionality, cost, usability, training difficulty, support, compatibility, performance, and many other factors -- and that mandating open-source solutions may require unacceptable levels of compromise on other dimensions that might be more important in a given situation.
"Biped! Good cranial development. Evidently considerable human ancestry."
The government shouldn't necessarily force the use of OSS, but rather make it a requirement to have full access to the source of a product they intent to use.
The difference would be that the software manufacturer doesn't need to change the license, but will have to make the source code available for review by the public. That doesn't mean that they give away their software. They still have the copyright and any use of the code without a license would be illegal.
***Quis custodiet ipsos custodes***
Sorry if I don't go along with the mantra, but I think that O'Reilly has a valid point. Legislating open source in government is not the answer.
I think a better solution would be a competition, ala defense procurements. The government lists what it needs, and everyone shows up and demonstrates what they can do. If open source can do everything the government needs, at a fraction of the price, then you have you solution. You could even put in place a performance to cost ratio to determine value. (ie- This product can 90% of what this other product does, but costs $250,000 less. Is 10% worth $250,000?)
I'm not saying that the procurement process isn't flawed, just that legislative mandates have historically spawned unintended consequences at a prodigious rate.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
The proposed law in California seems about as draconian as it's inverse would be.
I see no mention of a clause that (IIRC) Peru's proposed legislation has, that allows proprietary software to be used if there's no open source project that fits the project.
Instead of buing the round block for the round hole, they'll have to take a square block and slice & dice it until it's round?
Then there's the simple fact that Open Source isn't automatically better.
Let's face it, no matter how many Open Source projects are equal to or better than proprietary equivalents, there are still numerous pieces of proprietary software that are currently better than any Open Source equivalent.
At least one country realized this (Norway, IIRC), and just mandated that Open Source be considered along side Close Source programs.
Let them all stand on their merits (price, polish, support, ease of use, et al), and as long as the file formats are open, let the best software (for each job) win.
Dark Nexus
"Sanity is calming, but madness is more interesting."
Like 99.83% of all professionel programmers, I sell "my programming services", not the software I write. I.e. someone with a software need pay me to implement a solution. I get paid for my work, my employer get his problem solved, and as a side effect, software is created. I and my employer distribute the software freely in the hope someone will improve it, thus giving both of us additional features for free.
It would make perfectly sense for a government to try to get the same benefits as my employer does.
OK, I can understand that people don't like the idea of forcing people to use open source. I agree that it is not a preferable way to go. But I think there is an important point here beyond the politics.
Governments handle much of our crucial information - defense info, Social Security, tax stuff, etc. I have no doubt that most office workers doing their thing use Office tools in the government, and commercial programs for critical data processing. On the face of it, it would seem silly not to. Commercial software is supported.
But what happens if a major software provider for the government goes bust? No source code, no way to fix problems. That isn't acceptable. Period. So maybe the thing to do is to ensure that, rather than force the government to use open source software, have things work so that any license the government gets for software includeds a copy of the source, and the right to maintain it should the company supporting it go bust or EOL the product. That would be justifiable and a good idea.
Open source has the advantage of already being fully available. But mandating open source is overkill. Mandating consideration of open source, including the cost of adding features to or creating a new project - that I can see and would approve of. Not mandating open source for all uses. Some software is hard to develop in an open environment, such as specialized research software for scientific applications.
Where I can see mandating open code, either BSD or public domain licensing, is in software government employees write, excepting critical security code. If they do some useful database software with taxpayer money, why shouldn't we use it? But that doesn't restrict government usage of commercial software.
Just my opinion of course, but to me it makes sense. Make sure that govenment used software doesn't become unmaintainable (not unmaintained, note, just not unmaintainable) and that government written software is open and available whenever possible.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
Should the government stop buying commercial routers because they use a proprietary operating system?
Should the government ground the entire F-16 fleet until some open source programmer releases a GPL F-16 fire control system?
People choose licenses for a reason. A single type of license is *not* the law.
I love Linux, and use it at home on my only desktop machine, but I would never want to force someone to use it. Weather or not it is the best tool for the job, people should have a choice. GNU/Linux is about choice. I want to be able to buy some proprietary software (like Opera), but we need STANDARDS. That is what it is about. Relying on one provider is not the answer. That goes for closed and open source alike.
Face it. There are just some things that you can't do with open source software, but closed options often limit the ability to be competitive, and to innovate. We've seen this for years.
In the end, closed advocates (e.g. Microsoft) are going to try to force out OSS by the means of the DMCA. I know that it is ridiculously unfair, but we have to work around it. If we try to force *everyone* to use OSS, then we will be no better. Yes, open source software will improve drastically, but we will lose the drive to be competitive. The same goes for closed software. Microsoft's attempt to lock down control over all forms of media and software will cause the same effect. We must be level with all of this.
I don't want my favorite OS to be pushed out of existence because some silly politician was too ignorant to support it for its benefits (I know that is the fear of many), but forcing people to use it isn't going to fight the opposition in favor of Palladium, and the likes.
I also still believe that: " 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. ...and I must say that I prefer open source a lot... and still I think these proposed open source -only laws are utterly stupid."
There's a world of difference between saying you want your representatives to use open source software and shoving it down their throats. If you want to lobby that folks use open source stuff, no problem. Trying to get a law passed saying they have no choice but to use it is nuts, especially using co$t as the basis of the argument. Add up the cost of switching proprietary software to open source software, getting folks to re-learn how to get their day to day tasks done, training the IT folks to support the software (or paying some company like IBM a fat chunk of change for support contracts), etc. and you've pretty much killed any savings you made by the switch.
Too many open source software users think the only cost of using the software is the price of the CD. People in the know realize that the cost of software is a pittance compared to the deployment, training, and support costs that surround the software.
Good god, Michael.
/., it's depressing to see an editor such as yourself bashing an article that endorses the ideological foundations for the Open Source movement. Spewing links to Microsoft FUD and drawing vague connections to ridiculous and oversimplified statements that no one would disagree with in an attempt to bolster such a weak argument might fool some of this community, but not all of us.
O'Reilly makes a *very* important point about forcing governments to use Open Source software: it's morally reprehensible. Quoting from a letter sent to Tim, "If you feel you have to coerce people, it would be better to force them to increase their disclosure. Require officials to document their acquisition critieria, require companies to publish their licensing policies, insist on use of open file formats for publicly accessible documents. That is, increase the flow of information and the range of choices, rather than trying to decrease them. That's what Open Source is supposed to be about - increasing choices, right?"
Moreoever, your criticisms against Tim are as sophomoric as they are transparent:
1."O'Reilly seems to be promoting the agenda of Microsoft's Software Choice campaign. He's a business man; perhaps there's a reason we don't know about." His manner employment is irrelevant - attacking an argument that calls into question the "slippery slope" of using legislation to force a particular subset of software upon a goverment on the grounds that the author of the argument is a businessman is an ad homimen fallacy, not a substantial critique.
2. "Saying "People should be free to keep their papers private" as an argument against government FOI laws is just a stupid strawman, unworthy of further debate." Ok, agreed. Where does Tim say this? Where does this quote come from? The argument O'Reilly has against forcing the government of CA to use Open Source software is that "any victory for open source achieved through deprivation of the user's right to choose would indeed be a betrayal of the principles that free software and open source have stood for" - a point that is very different from some claim to a person's right to privacy.
3. "Governments play by different rules. They need to be fiscally responsible, transparent to the public, and promote the public commonwealth whenever possible." I argue that the public commonwealth is best promoted by protecting what O'Reilly calls "Freedom Zero": "the freedom to offer your work to the world on the terms that you choose, and for the recipients to accept or reject those terms." When you start to force *any* entity to use software, you're violating what I perceive to be one of the fundamental principles of the Free software movement.
4."Whatever his motives, his lame arguments are no reason to stop pushing for governments to use Free or Open Source software wherever possible." Pushing for governments to use Free/Open Source software is fine, but O'Reilly's "lame arguments" boil down to the simple notion that "This last temptation is the greatest treason: to do the right deed for the wrong reason."
Although I've come to expect the mentality of least resistance here at
As Fight Club said, "sticking feathers up your butt doesn't make you a chicken." Thanks for the proof, Michael.
We who were living are now dying
With a little patience
It is about license choice, and ultimately whether the government should be able to require licenses that allow them to switch vendor.
Do you think that, in the long run, it is a good idea for a government to become dependent on software that you can only be supported and upgraded by a single vendor?
Or do you believe that, in the long run, the government is better of with software where it can choose the best supplier of support and upgrades, and switch supplier if the old one doesn't do a good job, or raises prices unresonably?
If you believe the answer to the later question is "yes", you should support policies (or "laws") that require such licenses.
The notion of requiring all software used by the government to be open source seems to be going a little too far. The problem as I see it is that some software is simply not available as open source and is needed to get their work done. On occasion the government does get stuff done and nobody benefits from making it harder for that to happen. Having said that, I think that requiring the government to make use of open source make sense if handle more reasonably.
Any software custom written for government use must be open source. Companies unwilling to open up their source code will likely find many new competitors perfectly happy to take those big government checks.
Any software that is a boxed purchased product from a retail store or what have you is fair game either way with one caveat. All documents created by this software that are for public consumption must use open formats. So the government can use Office if it's the best tool for the job, but they should be saving in plain text, RTF, etc.
My thinking is that the ongoing cuts into government budgets will encourage use of open source without need of government mandate. The only exception being in the realm of custom written software which I think should be open source because it opens up future enhancement of the software to competitive bids. There should also be some mandates about the clarity of the code, etc (an open source mandate means jack all if somebody can just crank their code through an obfuscator).
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Does the public have a RIGHT to know the government's network infrastructure? Does the public have a RIGHT to know what data is on every civil servant's hard drive?
I realize this is a rhetorical question, but, using the justification of those monitoring *my* communications at work, I would say the answer is a most definite yes, particularly to the first question.
The arguments of "state secrecy" are only defensible if a) we don't care what our government does or b) we don't want to know what our government does. As I spend the first five months of every year supporting an organization that allegedly functions in my interest, I feel I have every right to know--at every depth, well beyond FOIA--what that organization is doing.
Now, you talk about the cost to the taxpayer, but when you're spending billions on things that blow up (where's the ROI in *that*?), that argument is shaky at best. I think the infrastructure could be refitted at the expense of a few less missles, while eliminating the secondary (Microsoft/Oracle/IBM) tax of proprietary software.
O'reilly called Peru "great theatre", which makes you wonder just how commited to openness he is--they expect accountability out of their government down there. By taking this stand, he seems to imply that doin' bidness should take precedence over the REAL openness of a people demanding that their government not take corporate payoffs in software contracts, etc.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, The Histories
I don't think each individual office have the means to understand the long time consequences of the legal restrictions for a given license restriction. Mostly, they want something that solves the local problem *now*. Also, acting as a whole the government has a lot more clout in negotiating license terms than any individual office.
I agree that individuals should have the freedom to enter into whatever software license they wish. It does not automatically follow that government employees should be able to enter into any kind of license on our behalf.
The question is whether it is good public policy to make free software licenses mandatory in public procurement. This is a debatable matter, but one principle is clear to me, at least: a private individual may freely dismiss the effect of his actions on the public good, but a public servant has a higher obligation to work for the good of the public.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Let's just make this simple. Make it a rule that the government cannot do business with anybody that is a monopoly. That kills off the big shark in the pond, and opens up the game for competitors of all colors to compete. If open source is truly the best, then it will win in the market place. Doesn't need a law to protect it.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
'No one should be forced to choose open source, any more than they should be forced to choose proprietary software.'
Michael, you're being way too hard on Tim O'Reilly: I think he's enunciated an important moral principle here. You wouldn't think a professional business man would be the one to finally state the principle of absolute anarchy so clearly and succinctly, but how could you do much better than "no one should be forced to do x, any more than they should be forced to do not x? This is especially brave since Tim's business becomes irrelevant: no one should be forced to obey the boss, any more than they should be forced to ignore the boss.
I mean, with this principle, the legal choices of the government about free software really become irrelevant: no one should be forced to follow the law, any more than they should be forced to break the law.
In fact, pretty much everything becomes irrelevant. No one should be forced to respect the public interest, any more than they should be forced to ignore the public interest. Heck, no one should be forced to build good, cheap software, anymore than they should be forced to build shoddy, overpriced software.
In short, nobody should be prevented from doing evil, any more than they should be prevented from doing good.
--po8, who thinks that nobody should be forced to listen to pseudo-philosophical drivel any more than they should be forced to spew pseudo-philosophical drivel.
Transparancy should be a stated goal of government, but the path there is vast and rocky. Migration is costly and time consuming.
I hope they are doing the NRA thing. Move to one extreme side and then shift to the middle to show that you are "being reasonable."
Transparency, cost cutting, sharing, fighting waste, and increasing reuse are worthy goals, but there must be a process for exception (not exemption except in National Security Matters) to ease the pain of transition.
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
I have to agree, legislation that forces people to choose one type of sofware is not a good idea, since one day the tables might get turned. It is similar to legislating a national religion, which is fine as long as the "Fundamental Whackos" are not in power.
However I do understand the angst in the Open Source community against Microsoft, Palladium, and bad legistlation like the DMCA. The real question is should we allow ourselves to become as ruthless as companies like Microsoft who squish, crush, and steal from anyone who even remotely looks like a threat?
Does the Open Source Community really want to become what it despises or is it really a last ditch effort at survival?
Myself, I am trying to adopt the "agnostic IBM" view of the world and give people the best tool for the job, which usually offers a good blend of Open Source and proprietary software. I have learned a lot from watching IBM and, just by IBM "giving customers a choice" as opposed to ramrodding solutions, they have become Microsoft's enemy #1.
One important thing that Open Source/GNU/Linux has going for it, is the mere fact "it's cool". Also, chicks dig that cute little penguin because Tux is sooo cute.
Microsoft is currently not envogue or cool, except for maybe the XBOX, which I refuse to buy until it can run Linux. Let's face it, Bill Gates (the lead software architect of Microsoft) can't even explain their coolest product called ".NET" which doesn't even have a cute animal to represent it. In fact, ".NET" sounds downright anti-cute and anti-environmental.
Personally, I think if Bill Gates had any ballz, that he would quit Microsoft and start a new company that competed agaist Microsoft and introduced even more chaos and choice into the market.
Speaking of choice, I went down and looked at the new Apple Mac this week. That dual processor beast with the 16:9 aspect ratio LCD panel is just incredible and it even comes with all my favorite UNIX tools installed. I was so WoW'ed that I might buy one soon; WHY? because the Mac is now a mix of proprietary and Open Source which "GIVES ME A CHOICE!" and a darn good looking hardware solution wrapped in clear acrylic.
The theory is that the votes make the choice.
If the law is passed, the choice has been made.
O'Reilly is not arguing for freedom of choice.
He is arguing that one choice is bad, and the
alternative is better. He is wrong about that,
obviously, as should be no surprise considering
that he makes such an silly lapse of reasoning
as to confuse making a choice with giving up the
freedom to choose. It's difficult to reason
correctly if one uses terms in such a bizarre
fashion.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Although I don't support the DSSA in its current form, I don't think that Tim has ever tried to sell products to the governments and their agencies - I have. Open Source has inherent disadvantages in trying to sell to a government customer. Government often creates lists of "qualified" vendors. These lists often serve as a procurement "menu" the government agencies decide what sofware technologies to implement. Going with off-list technology often requires extra justification and more work on the part of the procurement agency.
The nature of Open Source makes it difficult or impossible to participate in these lists. The regulation simply doesn't mesh well with the OSS paradigm. Look at California Educational List or the Federal Gov't GSA and try to imagine an Open Source project trying to qualify for a slot on those lists. Even if an Open Source business does qualify itself to the list, none of the other businesses offering service or support qualify - removing a key advantage of Open Source -- multi-vendor competition over support of the same product.
I do think some sort of "Consider Open Source First" software procurement policy is in order. Either that, or a gov't office to specifically qualify Open Source projects to these procurement lists.
O'Reilly seems to be promoting the agenda of Microsoft's Software Choice campaign. He's a business man; perhaps there's a reason we don't know about.
Yes! A business man! He must be evil!
He's been deceiving us all along. We should have know he wasn't one of us, one of the chosen.
Heretic! Burn him! Burn him!
Only when the world is rid of businessmen/corporations/greed will I be able to get the food/music/girls/sex I deserve. And maybe the pimples will disappear, too -- yes, I'm sure of it!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
No, I'm not saying all laws are "good". I'm not even saying this law is good. I'm just saying that there is no concept of "forcing" in a democracy.
While it may be wrong to force a private person to use Open Source, it does not follow that it is wrong to force a government because a government is not an individual. A (democratic) government is one in which its will is defined as the will of the People (whether that will be expressed through direct elections or elections of representatives).
It is no more morally wrong to force the Government to use Open Source than it is wrong for Richard Stallman to force himself to use Free Software.
And just because it's morally acceptable for Richard Stallman to choose only Free Software for himself does not mean that it is a "good" choice for himself. There are certainly good points and bad points. He has limited the software that he can choose for himself and may have a tougher time achieving results than he would using proprietary software. He has decided that those disadvantages do not outweigh the benefits of Free Software and he has chosen accordingly.
California is now confronted with the same dilemma. They are free to make their choice. Personally, I believe the Peruvian law offers a better balance in that it at least leaves the opportunity to use proprietary software when no other alternative is available.
Regardless of the pros or cons of this law, my original point was that the debate should be centered on the pros and cons. Talking of "forcing" the government to use Open Source is a straw man.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
It is about whether it is sometimes a good idea to depend on a single vendor for support and upgrades not.
If you don't think that is a good idea, you should make it a policy to require a free software license for the software you purchace. This is true no matter whether you are an individual, a corporation, or a government.
However, the larger you are, the more likely it is that vendor independence for support and upgrades will benefit you, as alarge customer is more likely to be able to find a new vendor.
Some Open Source detractors say that peer code review is a myth and that no one has the time to do it anyway. The government has full time programmers who can and do audit internal software. They can audit OSS just as well. It is negligent to wait for your proprietary software manufacturer to release "HotFix #9182" when you can fix the bug yourself (especially if it exposes risks to national security).
So for vital government computer systems, using open source is a matter of national security. As for the bureacratic offices -- it's true they don't "need" OSS.
michael: not only are the more sane & rational posters here out to get you, but so is doubleclick. this is what i saw when i clicked "Read More" (sorry about the quality, i tried =\ ). no joke.
i'm amazed that i survived - an airbag saved my life.
Government must use standards compliant software:
1. Software must store data in an open patent/royalty free standard format and be useable by any other software.
2. Software that must interoperate, should be able to do so without preference to a specific vendor. i.e. follow open and patent/royalty free communication standards.
3. Software, depending on its application, must be demonstratedly secure by:
- making it the law that a security flaw for software running on government systems must be fixed (no: "but you can buy our new later version full of features you don't need")-- for a reasonable fee if appropriate.
- a vendor shall be liable for refusing to disclose vulnerabilities their software has that have not been addressed in a timely fasion.
- having been the subject of independent review and analysis.
4. Portable software that is available on more than one platform must be given precedence over software that can only operate on one platform.
5. Companies who fail to support software, or refuse to or have gone bankrupt, should in their contract have clauses that force the code to their software made open-source so that the goverment may have somebody else support their system.
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
Anyone who has spent any time listening to the Technetcast archives will know that Tim O'Reilly is not someone you discard just because they are saying something you don't want to hear. He has better open source credentials than 99% of the people who will weigh into this discussion, even if we darkly suspect he is feeding his family on the side. I've done nothing in my life as a computer programmer to compare with what Tim has contributed.
And Tim is making a point here which is 100% correct. The label "open source" is not an acceptable substitute for what we are really trying to achieve. If it did happen that governments such as Peru enacted these policies, it would certainly be a victory for accountable government and the democratic process (at least between the state and its citizens, which is NOT the sum total of what democracy requires).
The lame argument here is the last paragraph of the slashdot submission. I know exactly what lame means in that paragraph: "I don't want to think that hard about difficult issues, so chalk it all up to hidden agendas, name the villians, and move along". If Tim O'Reilly's open source credentials are subject to this kind of aspersion, whose only sin so far is to give serious consideration to the political reality of taking an immoderate stance on the traditions of goverment since America was founded, there isn't a business person alive whose integrity means anything at all to the open source community.
Sure it's annoying to see Tim throw out these unpleasant thoughts half digested. But that's what he does: he creates forums for really smart people to think and speak about difficult issues.
I don't know the right answer to this question. The problem is too difficult to think through in one day, or even one year.
We need a notion along the lines of "government product" which encompasses everything they do on behalf of the public (memos, e-mail, publications, databases, registries, etc.) and mandates that all of this goverment product is fully exposed in representations supported and validated by freely available, open source code. Once you have this in place, the open source community can implement every system of government, and then we need to win the arguments over cost justification of taxpayer dollars. And maybe at the end of the day we find we are actually doing the right things for the right reasons after all.
I know that many people in this forum won't get past the fact that Tim has said something ugly. For those of you who sometimes stop to think about the unpleasant, this is one of those times to step back, take a hard look, and admit that the world doesn't always offer the easy paths we'd prefer to follow. Tim had the courage to do this, so should we.
Why is this all being viewed as the government making only one choice, or "restricting" themselves? The government -- and everyone else -- does this all the time. It's called a requirement. When Boeing and Lockheed competed for the Stealth Bomber contract, did they complain that the government was restricting themselves to only use planes with low radar profiles? No, it was a requirement for the contract.
"Getting the job done" can mean more than processing a document. If you also require that you have open standards, the ability to check code for backdoors and security issue, and that your choice of software now doesn't lock you in to a particular vendor in the future -- are these not merely requirements which, like all other requirements you might have, result in some software not being eligible due to failing to meet these requirements? Restricting yourself to only those things which fullfill your needs is not insane, it is superlatively rational.
What you think using open source software has to do with making available the contents of a civil servant's hard drive I can't fathom, which is why I didn't really address that part.
The enemies of Democracy are
One fundamental problem with open-source zealotry is the assumption that in every possible case, open-source software is better than any proprietary alternative. This has a nasty tendency to piss off regular users ("Why are you forcing this on me? I liked my Windows just fine.") and less zealous OSS advocates (who are trying very hard to convince people that we Free Software types are capable of being reasonable).
What the government needs to do is a detailed cost-benefit analysis for each major software purchase. Linux is cheaper to run in some cases, but the fact is, you need to retrain people to use new software, and they can often get bogged down if said software isn't of as high quality as the commercial software they were originally using. Microsoft Office has its annoyances, but is still (in my experience) generally a better office suite than Open/StarOffice.
Anyway, those are my thoughts. They decision shouldn't be made for government organizations. It should just be an educated decision made by engineers and regular users, as opposed to managers who have just been impressed by salesmen.
So basically what you're saying is that MS should reveal the ingredients that make Windows.
Something like "We used the C and the assembly programming languages to bring you this OS".
I love Linux, and use it at home on my only desktop machine, but I would never want to force someone to use it.
... it is merely an attempt to force opennenss on government, to protect citizen's access to information irrespective of what operating system or user software they use, be it Free Software, Apple, or, God forbid, Microsoft.
I love democracy, and use it at home, but I would never want to force someone to use it, unless they are my government.
This is about transparency in government, and the assurance that public documents (birth certificates, deeds, tax rolls, etc.) are as accessible in 50 years as they are today, and not held hostage by anyone, be it Microsoft or RMS.
It isn't enough to have open data storage formats, because transparency also requires that we know what is being done with the data in question. This becomes a particularly potent issue if software is ever used for voting, choosing who is drafted should the draft ever be reinstated, choosing who is audited by the IRS, or, as another mentioned, defining how our personal information is protected from others.
Transparency can not be achieved in any of these areas unless the source code is available and open to public scruitiny.
Microsoft lackeys and their moderation points aside, Michael and his sometimes over the top rhetoric aside, Tim O'Reilly is simply wrong on this issue, as are all those who advocate "choice" for those who have power over the rest of us.
Our government doesn't get to choose if and when it would like to exchange democracy for autocracy. It should not get to choose if and when it would like to exchange openness and accessibility to information for proprietary software and data formats. Stick with the latter, and you end up with fiascos like the NOAA[1].
I am simply amazed that so many people think this is trying to force OSS or Free Software on 'everybody.' Nothing could be farther from the truth
[1]where you have to pay $100 or more for a $3 CDROM of all the marine charts that were made with your tax dollars, because some politician/beuarocrat signed a sweetheart deal giving a private company exclusive rights to resell our public data.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Besides, it's not like this is an actual attempt to promote more secure, cost-effective software. In the end this is just a tool to try and wedge better pricing and terms out of Microsoft. Been done before.
New Shimmer is both!
Please keep in mind that RedHat, IBM, MandrakeSoft and Linux International are among those backing the legislation. Make sure that those idiots don't get any of your money.
Besides, I thought that RedHat and IBM had closed source software. Am I wrong?
There are quite a few people getting far too uppity about this. And while it is a goal worth taking political action over, I think one of the core problems with the Open Source movement is the fact that we don't know when to back down. Our collective character wants to resolve the problem, crush the "evil bad guys" (Microsoft and proprietary giants) and save the future of computing for people everywhere - seriously, it's our mindset. We grew up watching star wars and star trek, right? As a movement we've been overcome by the blindness and fervor that we decry in the corporations and government we struggle against.
If we truly want freedom, we should be fighting for the freedom to choose - the freedom to pick the best tool for the job. The freedom to use open source if it is better, or to pick proprietary software if it's the best tool for the job. Passing bills mandating the use of open source in the government takes away the freedom of the government to do its job as efficiently as possible. We're taking away from their freedom. Using the exact same method that the MPAA, RIAA, and other corporate entities make use of things like the DMCA to impact our own freedom. And what's the point of inflicting one "freedom" on the government just to take away another?
Democracies obviously can force their citizens, and it is certainly true that many of those decisions to do so are not moral.
The Copyright law (title 17), however, imposes a limitation on what the government can do. Specifically, it forbids itself from Copyrighting its own works.
If the DSSA is wrong because it is "wrong to limit choice," then this section of the Copyright law is equally wrong in that it forbids the government from doing something that most individuals are allowed to do.
Then you must be opposed to that part of the Copyright law. The ideology behind it (and the DSSA and the FOIA) are that government functions should be transparent.-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Alot of people here seem to be pouncing on the idea that such laws would require the gov't to use OSS / FS even when it is not the best solution. Though I'd argue that in most cases -- overall -- it is, it's possible that it may not be the best solution. So, yes, this law would force the government to occasionally use software which wasn't the best solution.
But there are other things at play here than the best solution to a problem: namely, a core value to any Democracy -- transparency. Proprietary software decreases transparency, OSS / FS / public domain software increases it. I'd also argue that the gov't can use software which is "source for free to dist/change/whatever, but pay to use". This still preserves that basic principal of transparency.
I know there are some of you here who insist that this is "affirmative actions for software". I disagree. This is mandating moral character in the software that our government uses. Don't laugh. A person without moral character -- i.e., a crook -- will have difficulty getting a job. Software can also have a moral character; in this case, it certainly does. In the government, software which is open preserves transparency has moral character, whereas that which does not is does not have moral character.
If you still have problems with this, it most likely comes back to the idea that "the best software should be chosen". While I think that the licensing should be considered in deciding what's the best software, lets ignore that for now. Lets say that a proprietary product is the best. So what? The government has lots of money, and can easily take an open piece of software and make it the best for the job. This would ultimately save the government money. Alternatively, it could buy the rights to the "best product" from the owner, then open that product up.
The question then, is which license should software the government creates/modifies/buys fall under? Well, if its modified GPL code, obviously it has to fall under the GPL. But if they create something from scratch, or buy out a proprietary product, what then? Well, I suggest in all cases -- until the desired license is decided on -- the government stick to the GPL. Why? Because you can change the license on the exact same product from the GPL to OSS (i.e., BSD) to public domain. But you can't change the license on the same piece of software from public domain to BSD to GPL.
Transparency is a key value in any Democratic government, and the more transparent a democracy is, the healthier it is. Conversely, the worst of governments and authorities aren't transparent at all. As an example government, take Iraq, and as an example authority, take ICANN.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
So you're admitting that thanks to proprietary software we have more powerfull machines.
I dare you to find a big corporation that doesn't use that "use my product or else tactic". Hell I have a small business and I use that tactic but I'll never force anyone to use my products. I just encourage them to use my products if they want better pricing.
"No one should be forced to choose open source, any more than they should be forced to choose proprietary software."
I'm sorry, copyright law here is the force, not open source licenses.
Well, except for the clause in many open source licenses such as the GPL forcing people to reveal their source code.
Well that would rule out the GPL then. It requires that you hand over any modifications to the sourcecode. That IS a restriction. The only true 'free' license would be Public Domain...
Oh and BTW my 2 cents worth...Forced Open Formats for public documents = good. Forced OSS software - Bad. Lets fight on perfomance. M$ (tries to) force companies to use their software, we don't have to.
[Please type your sig here.]
LOL, the IRS uses computers to do your taxes? Ok, if you call those room-sized monstrosities in the IRS from the 1950's which still use tape-recorders, then maybe.
Anyways, you claim that if the software the IRS uses to determine audits were OpenSourced, people could scam the IRS, is absurd.
Think configuration files.
I.e., in psuedocode, a section of the program might say:
Conduct audit if:
income > x
AND
taxes paid y
Where the variables x, y, and z would be defined in a configuration file, which would not be released to the public.
Similar problems can be dealth with in a similar way. In either case, the problem isn't with the disclosure of the code itself, but rather certain key values. Its the difference between disclosind the encryption algorithm/software and disclosing one's personal key.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Moderation Totals: Troll=1, Insightful=5, Overrated=4, Total=10.
Wow, I love how posts that actually expose the truth get modded into oblivion. What are you trying to hide, moderators? Can you not handle the truth?
Aw, fuck it. Let's go bowling. - The Big Lebowski
I work on large, US taxpayer-funded research projects. We gather *huge* amounts of data, and use less than a third of it ourselves. Some of it will eventually be datamined by other projects, and all of it has potential for future researchers. Perhaps in a year or two; perhaps in 20 years. It's that kind of data.
I couldn't actually give a shit about open source vs closed sorce *software* - in a given week I switch back & forth between MacOS, NT, and Linux, and use both proprietary and open source tools on all three depending entirely on what best suits the task is at hand. But having the data I work with in an open format which can be used by multiple tools from multiple vendors across all three of the platforms I use is essential. And in the longer term, making absolutely sure the data I work with is and will remain available to other researchers is critical.
We, the taxpayers, pay for an incredible amount of extremely expensive research, and to deliberately lock the products of this research up in proprietary formats which may not be accessible to later researchers (eg the 1960's census data debacle) is criminal stupidity.
when unsound reason yields the best conclusion.
The consequences of legislation to require government agencies to purchase (Open Source|Free) software may be good or bad; I don't wish to make a case for either at the moment. I do think, however, that both Mr. O'Reilly's reasoning, and that of his correspondent, are flawed, and that both characterize the issue badly.
Government agencies are not individuals, with freedoms we regard as inherently worth protecting. Nor do they spend their own money; they spend the money of the people they serve, which in most cases is provided for them by the legislature representing those people.
When the mystery correspondent characterizes these laws as "criminalizing an official' s decision to buy commercial software", and when Mr. O'Reilly characterizes them as the "deprivation of the user's right to choose", they suggest that the people entrusted with the administration of these agencies have some right to spend tax money in the way that they see fit. They do not. Nor is having the legislature hand down policies on what goods agencies acquire anything like having the legislature forbid individuals to write or use P2P software (a comparison made by O'Reilly in the discussion forum). This is not about whether, how, and to what extent the government should regulate the software industry. This is about one way in which the Legislative branch checks the Executive branch.
O'Reilly's pragmatic points, though underdeveloped, are more interesting. Perhaps this is a matter of legislative micro-(mis)management. Perhaps these constraints would seriously impede the ability of many agencies to fulfil their responsibilities. Perhaps this would open up a fight with software corporations that we don't want, or can't win.
I'd much rather Mr. O'Reilly had developed these, as I think his argument from principle falls down flat. If we took it seriously, we'd have Congress able to give money to agencies, without any say in how the money was spent. Unelected officials without constraints on their spending isn't what most people mean by 'political freedom'.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
That's apples w/ oranges. Can I have the source to all your web apps? Oh? No? How bout you write the code for Apache, Tomcat, JBoss, and Linux for free... yes... fucking free! Their programmers do!
It doesn't seem so easy anymore, does it?
Aw, fuck it. Let's go bowling. - The Big Lebowski
Looks like O'Reilly and the rest of you reactionaries need another lesson in civic responsibility. So once again, here's the definitive argument from Peruvian congressman Dr. Edgar David Villanueva Nuñez. Read it carefully and you might learn a thing or two.
Lima, 8th of April, 2002
To: Señor JUAN ALBERTO GONZÁLEZ
General Manager of Microsoft, Perú
Dear Sir:
First of all, I thank you for your letter of March 25, 2002 in which you state the official position of Microsoft relative to Bill Number 1609, Free Software in Public Administration, which is indubitably inspired by the desire for Peru to find a suitable place in the global technological context. In the same spirit, and convinced that we will find the best solutions through an exchange of clear and open ideas, I will take this opportunity to reply to the commentaries included in your letter.
While acknowledging that opinions such as yours constitute a significant contribution, it would have been even more worthwhile for me if, rather than formulating objections of a general nature (which we will analyse in detail later) you had gathered solid arguments for the advantages that proprietary software could bring to the Peruvian State, and to its citizens in general, since this would have allowed a more enlightening exchange in respect of each of our positions.
With the aim of creating an orderly debate, we will assume that what you call "open source software" is what the Bill defines as "free software", since there exists software for which the source code is distributed together with the program, but which does not fall within the definition established by the Bill; and that what you call "commercial software" is what the Bill defines as "proprietary" or "unfree", given that there exists free software which is sold in the market for a price like any other good or service.
It is also necessary to make it clear that the aim of the Bill we are discussing is not directly related to the amount of direct savings that can by made by using free software in state institutions. That is in any case a marginal aggregate value, but in no way is it the chief focus of the Bill. The basic principles which inspire the Bill are linked to the basic guarantees of a state of law, such as:
Free access to public information by the citizen.
Permanence of public data.
Security of the State and citizens.
To guarantee the free access of citizens to public information, it is indespensable that the encoding of data is not tied to a single provider. The use of standard and open formats gives a guarantee of this free access, if necessary through the creation of compatible free software.
To guarantee the permanence of public data, it is necessary that the usability and maintenance of the software does not depend on the goodwill of the suppliers, or on the monopoly conditions imposed by them. For this reason the State needs systems the development of which can be guaranteed due to the availability of the source code.
To guarantee national security or the security of the State, it is indispensable to be able to rely on systems without elements which allow control from a distance or the undesired transmission of information to third parties. Systems with source code freely accessible to the public are required to allow their inspection by the State itself, by the citizens, and by a large number of independent experts throughout the world. Our proposal brings further security, since the knowledge of the source code will eliminate the growing number of programs with *spy code*.
In the same way, our proposal strengthens the security of the citizens, both in their role as legitimate owners of information managed by the state, and in their role as consumers. In this second case, by allowing the growth of a widespread availability of free software not containing *spy code* able to put at risk privacy and individual freedoms.
In this sense, the Bill is limited to establishing the conditions under which the state bodies will obtain software in the future, that is, in a way compatible with these basic principles.
From reading the Bill it will be clear that once passed:
-the law does not forbid the production of proprietary software
-the law does not forbid the sale of proprietary software
-the law does not specifiy which concrete software to use
-the law does not dictate the supplier from whom software will be bought
-the law does not limit the terms under which a software product can be licensed.
What the Bill does express clearly, is that, for software to be acceptable for the state it is not enough that it is technically capable of fulfilling a task, but that further the contractual conditions must satisfy a series of requirements reguarding the license, without which the State cannot guarantee the citizen adequate processing of his data, watching over its integrity, confidentiality, and accessibility throughout time, as these are very critical aspects for its normal functioning.
We agree, Mr. Gonzalez, that information and communication technology have a significant impact on the quality of life of the citizens (whether it be positive or negative). We surely also agree that the basic values I have pointed out above are fundamental in a democratic state like Peru. So we are very interested to know of any other way of guaranteeing these principles, other than through the use of free software in the terms defined by the Bill.
As for the observations you have made, we will now go on to analyse them in detail:
Firstly, you point out that: "1. The bill makes it compulsory for all public bodies to use only free software, that is to say open source software, which breaches the principles of equality before the law, that of non-discrimination and the right of free private enterprise, freedom of industry and of contract, protected by the constitution."
This understanding is in error. The Bill in no way affects the rights you list; it limites itself entirely to establishing conditions for the use of software on the part of state institutions, without in any way meddling in private sector transactions. It is a well established principle that the State does not enjoy the wide spectrum of contractual freedom of the private sector, as it is limited in its actions precisely by the requirement for transparency of public acts; and in this sense, the preservation of the greater common interest must prevail when legislating on the matter.
The Bill protects equality under the law, since no natural or legal person is excluded from the right of offering these goods to the State under the conditions defined in the Bill and without more limitations than those established by the Law of State Contracts and Purchasing (T.U.O. por Decreto Supremo No. 012-2001-PCM).
The Bill does not introduce any discrimination whatever, since it only establishes *how* the goods have to be provided (which is a state power) and not *who* has to provide them (which would effectively be discriminatory, if restrictions based on national origin, race religion, ideology, sexual preference etc. were imposed). On the contrary, the Bill is decidedly antidiscriminatory. This is so because by defining with no room for doubt the conditions for the provision of software, it prevents state bodies from using software which has a license including discriminatory conditions.
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. This free initiative is of course compatible with the freedom of industry and freedom of contract (in the limited form in which the State can exercise the latter). Any private subject can produce software under the conditions which the State requires, or can refrain from doing so. Nobody is forced to adopt a model of production, but if they wish to provide software to the State, they must provide the mechanisms which guarantee the basic principles, and which are those described in the Bill.
By way of an example: nothing in the text of the Bill would prevent your company offering the State bodies an office "suite", under the conditions defined in the Bill and setting the price that you consider satisfactory. If you did not, it would not be due to restrictions imposed by the law, but to business decisions relative to the method of commercializing your products, decisions with which the State is not involved.
To continue; you note that:" 2. The bill, by making the use of open source software compulsory, would establish discriminatory and non competitive practices in the contracting and purchasing by public bodies..."
This statement is just a reiteration of the previous one, and so the response can be found above. However, let us concern ourselves for a moment with your comment regarding "non-competitive
Of course, in defining any kind of purchase, the buyer sets conditions which relate to the proposed use of the good or service. From the start, this excludes certain manufacturers from the possibility of competing, but does not exclude them "a priori", but rather based on a series of principles determined by the autonomous will of the purchaser, and so the process takes place in conformance with the law. And in the Bill it is established that *no-one* is excluded from competing as far as he guarantees the fullfilment of the basic principles.
Furthermore, the Bill *stimulates* competition, since it tends to generate a supply of software with better conditions of usability, and to better existing work, in a model of continuous improvement.
On the other hand, the central aspect of competivity is the chance to provide better choices to the consumer. Now, it is impossible to ignore the fact that marketing does not play a neutral role when the product is offered on the market (since accepting the opposite would lead one to suppose that firms' expenses in marketing lack any sense), and that therefore a significant expense under this heading can influence the decisions of the purchaser. This influence of marketing is in large measure reduced by the bill that we are backing, since the choice within the framework proposed is based on the *technical merits* of the product and not on the effort put into commercialization by the producer; in this sense, competitvity is increased, since the smallest software producer can compete on equal terms with the most powerful corporations.
It is necessary to stress that there is no position more anti-competitive than that of the big software producers, which frequently abuse their dominant position, since in innumerable cases they propose as a solution to problems raised by users: "update your software to the new version" (at the user's expense, naturally); furthermore, it is common to find arbitrary cessation of technical help for products, which, in the provider's judgement alone, are "old"; and so, to receive any kind of technical assistance, the user finds himself forced to migrate to new versions (with non-trivial costs, especially as changes in hardware platform are often involved). And as the whole infrastructure is based on proprietary data formats, the user stays "trapped" in the need to continue using products from the same supplier, or to make the huge effort to change to another environment (probably also proprietary).
You add: "3. So, by compelling the State to favour a business model based entirely on open source, the bill would only discourage the local and international manufacturing companies, which are the ones which really undertake important expenditures, create a significant number of direct and indirect jobs, as well as contributing to the GNP, as opposed to a model of open source software which tends to have an ever weaker economic impact, since it mainly creates jobs in the service sector."
I do not agree with your statement. Partly because of what you yourself point out in paragraph 6 of your letter, regarding the relative weight of services in the context of software use. This contradiction alone would invalidate your position. The service model, adopted by a large number of companies in the software industry, is much larger in economic terms, and with a tendency to increase, than the licensing of programs.
On the other hand, the private sector of the economy has the widest possible freedom to choose the economic model which best suits its interests, even if this freedom of choice is often obscured subliminally by the disproportionate expenditure on marketing by the producers of proprietary software.
In addition, a reading of your opinion would lead to the conclusion that the State market is crucial and essential for the proprietary software industry, to such a point that the choice made by the State in this bill would completely eliminate the market for these firms. If that is true, we can deduce that the State must be subsidising the proprietary software industry. In the unlikely event that this were true, the State would have the right to apply the subsidies in the area it considered of greatest social value; it is undeniable, in this improbable hypothesis, that if the State decided to subsidize software, it would have to do so choosing the free over the proprietary, considering its social effect and the rational use of taxpayers money.
In respect of the jobs generated by proprietary software in countries like ours, these mainly concern technical tasks of little aggregate value; at the local level, the technicians who provide support for proprietary software produced by transnational companies do not have the possibility of fixing bugs, not necessarily for lack of technical capability or of talent, but because they do not have access to the source code to fix it. With free software one creates more technically qualified employment and a framework of free competence where success is only tied to the ability to offer good technical support and quality of service, one stimulates the market, and one increases the shared fund of knowledge, opening up alternatives to generate services of greater total value and a higher quality level, to the benefit of all involved: producers, service organizations, and consumers.
It is a common phenomenon in developing countries that local software industries obtain the majority of their takings in the service sector, or in the creation of "ad hoc" software. Therefore, any negative impact that the application of the Bill might have in this sector will be more than compensated by a growth in demand for services (as long as these are carried out to high quality standards). If the transnational software companies decide not to compete under these new rules of the game, it is likely that they will undergo some decrease in takings in terms of payment for licences; however, considering that these firms continue to allege that much of the software used by the State has been illegally copied, one can see that the impact will not be very serious. Certainly, in any case their fortune will be determined by market laws, changes in which cannot be avoided; many firms traditionally associated with proprietary software have already set out on the road (supported by copious expense) of providing services associated with free software, which shows that the models are not mutually exclusive.
With this bill the State is deciding that it needs to preserve certain fundamental values. And it is deciding this based on its sovereign power, without affecting any of the constitutional guarantees. If these values could be guaranteed without having to choose a particular economic model, the effects of the law would be even more beneficial. In any case, it should be clear that the State does not choose an economic model; if it happens that there only exists one economic model capable of providing software which provides the basic guarantee of these principles, this is because of historical circumstances, not because of an arbitrary choice of a given model.
Your letter continues: "4. The bill imposes the use of open source software without considering the dangers that this can bring from the point of view of security, guarantee, and possible violation of the intellectual property rights of third parties."
Alluding in an abstract way to "the dangers this can bring", without specifically mentioning a single one of these supposed dangers, shows at the least some lack of knowledge of the topic. So, allow me to enlighten you on these points.
On security:
National security has already been mentioned in general terms in the initial discussion of the basic principles of the bill. In more specific terms, relative to the security of the software itself, it is well known that all software (whether proprietary or free) contains errors or "bugs" (in programmers' slang). But it is also well-known that the bugs in free software are fewer, and are fixed much more quickly, than in proprietary software. It is not in vain that numerous public bodies reponsible for the IT security of state systems in developed countries require the use of free software for the same conditions of security and efficiency.
What is impossible to prove is that proprietary software is more secure than free, without the public and open inspection of the scientific community and users in general. This demonstration is impossible because the model of proprietary software itself prevents this analysis, so that any guarantee of security is based only on promises of good intentions (biased, by any reckoning) made by the producer itself, or its contractors.
It should be remembered that in many cases, the licensing conditions include Non-Disclosure clauses which prevent the user from publicly revealing security flaws found in the licensed proprietary product.
In respect of the guarantee:
As you know perfectly well, or could find out by reading the "End User License Agreement" of the products you license, in the great majority of cases the guarantees are limited to replacement of the storage medium in case of defects, but in no case is compensation given for direct or indirect damages, loss of profits, etc... If as a result of a security bug in one of your products, not fixed in time by yourselves, an attacker managed to compromise crucial State systems, what guarantees, reparations and compensation would your company make in accordance with your licencing conditions? The guarantees of proprietary software, inasmuch as programs are delivered ``AS IS'', that is, in the state in which they are, with no additional responsibility of the provider in respect of function, in no way differ from those normal with free software.
On Intellectual Property:
Questions of intellectual property fall outside the scope of this bill, since they are covered by specific other laws. The model of free software in no way implies ignorance of these laws, and in fact the great majority of free software is covered by copyright. In reality, the inclusion of this question in your observations shows your confusion in respect of the legal framework in which free software is developed. 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).
You go on to say that: "The bill uses the concept of open source software incorrectly, since it does not necessarily imply that the software is free or of zero cost, and so arrives at mistaken conclusions regarding State savings, with no cost-benefit analysis to validate its position."
This observation is wrong; in principle, freedom and lack of cost are orthogonal concepts: there is software which is proprietary and charged for (for example, MS Office), software which is proprietary and free of charge (MS Internet Explorer), software which is free and charged for (RedHat, SuSE etc Gnu/Linux distributions), software which is free and not charged for (Apache, OpenOffice, Mozilla), and even software which can be licensed in a range of combinations (MySQL).
Certainly free software is not necessarily free of charge. And the text of the bill does not state that it has to be so, as you will have noted after reading it. The definitions included in the Bill state clearly *what* should be considered free software, at no point referring to freedom from charges. Although the possibility of savings in payments for proprietary software licenses are mentioned, the foundations of the bill clearly refer to the fundamental guarantees to be preserved and to the stimulus to local technological development. Given that a democratic State must support these principles, it has no other choice than to use software with publicly available source code, and to exchange information only in standard formats.
If the State does not use software with these characteristics, it will be weakening basic republican principles. Luckily, free software also implies lower total costs; however, even given the hypothesis (easily disproved) that it was more expensive than proprietary software, the simple existence of an effective free software tool for a particular IT function would oblige the State to use it; not by command of this Bill, but because of the basic principles we enumerated at the start, and which arise from the very essence of the lawful democratic State.
You continue: "6. It is wrong to think that Open Source Software is free of charge. Research by the Gartner Group (an important investigator of the technological market recognized at world level) has shown that the cost of purchase of software (operating system and applications) is only 8% of the total cost which firms and institutions take on for a rational and truely beneficial use of the technology. The other 92% consists of: installation costs, enabling, support, maintenance, administration, and down-time."
This argument repeats that already given in paragraph 5 and partly contradicts paragraph 3. For the sake of brevity we refer to the comments on those paragraphs. However, allow me to point out that your conclusion is logically false: even if according to Gartner Group the cost of software is on average only 8% of the total cost of use, this does not in any way deny the existence of software which is free of charge, that is, with a licensing cost of zero.
In addition, in this paragraph you correctly point out that the service components and losses due to down-time make up the largest part of the total cost of software use, which, as you will note, contradicts your statement regarding the small value of services suggested in paragraph 3. Now the use of free software contributes significantly to reduce the remaining life-cycle costs. This reduction in the costs of installation, support etc. can be noted in several areas: in the first place, the competitive service model of free software, support and maintenance for which can be freely contracted out to a range of suppliers competing on the grounds of quality and low cost. This is true for installation, enabling, and support, and in large part for maintenance. In the second place, due to the reproductive characteristics of the model, maintenance carried out for an application is easily replicable, without incurring large costs (that is, without paying more than once for the same thing) since modifications, if one wishes, can be incorporated in the common fund of knowledge. Thirdly, the huge costs caused by non-functioning software ("blue screens of death", malicious code such as virus, worms, and trojans, exceptions, general protection faults and other well-known problems) are reduced considerably by using more stable software; and it is well-known that one of the most notable virtues of free software is its stability.
ou further state that: "7. One of the arguments behind the bill is the supposed freedom from costs of open-source software, compared with the costs of commercial software, without taking into account the fact that there exist types of volume licensing which can be highly advantageous for the State, as has happened in other countries."
I have already pointed out that what is in question is not the cost of the software but the principles of freedom of information, accessibility, and security. These arguments have been covered extensively in the preceding paragraphs to which I would refer you.
On the other hand, there certainly exist types of volume licensing (although unfortunately proprietary software does not satisfy the basic principles). But as you correctly pointed out in the immediately precding paragraph of your letter, they only manage to reduce the impact of a component which makes up no more than 8% of the total.
You continue: "8. In addition, the alternative adopted by the bill (i) is clearly more expensive, due to the high costs of software migration, and (ii) puts at risk compatibility and interoperability of the IT platforms within the State, and between the State and the private sector, given the hundreds of versions of open source software on the market."
Let us analyze your stament in two parts. Your first argument, that migration implies high costs, is in reality an argument in favour of the Bill. Because the more time goes by, the more difficult migration to another technology will become; and at the same time, the security risks associated with proprietary software will continue to increase. In this way, the use of proprietary systems and formats will make the State ever more dependent on specific suppliers. Once a policy of using free software has been established (which certainly, does imply some cost) then on the contrary migration from one system to another becomes very simple, since all data is stored in open formats. On the other hand, migration to an open software context implies no more costs than migration between two different proprietary software contexts, which invalidates your argument completely.
The second argument refers to "problems in interoperability of the IT platforms within the State, and between the State and the private sector" This statement implies a certain lack of knowledge of the way in which free software is built, which does not maximize the dependence of the user on a particular platform, as normally happens in the realm of proprietary software. Even when there are multiple free software distributions, and numerous programs which can be used for the same function, interoperability is guaranteed as much by the use of standard formats, as required by the bill, as by the possibility of creating interoperable software given the availability of the source code.
You then say that: "9. The majority of open source code does not offer adequate levels of service nor the guarantee from recognized manufacturers of high productivity on the part of the users, which has led various public organizations to retract their decision to go with an open source software solution and to use commercial software in its place."
This observation is without foundation. In respect of the guarantee, your argument was rebutted in the response to paragraph 4. In respect of support services, it is possible to use free software without them (just as also happens with proprietary software), but anyone who does need them can obtain support separately, whether from local firms or from international corporations, again just as in the case of proprietary software.
On the other hand, it would contribute greatly to our analysis if you could inform us about free software projects *established* in public bodies which have already been abandoned in favour of proprietary software. We know of a good number of cases where the opposite has taken place, but not know of any where what you describe has taken place.
You continue by observing that: "10. The bill demotivates the creativity of the peruvian software industry, which invoices 40 million US$/year, exports 4 million US$ (10th in ranking among non-traditional exports, more than handicrafts) and is a source of highly qualified employment. With a law that incentivates the use of open source, software programmers lose their intellectual property rights and their main source of payment."
It is clear enough that nobody is forced to commercialize their code as free software. The only thing to take into account is that if it is not free software, it cannot be sold to the public sector. This is not in any case the main market for the national software industry. We covered some questions referring to the influence of the Bill on the generation of employment which would be both highly technically qualified and in better conditions for competition above, so it seems unnecessary to insist on this point.
What follows in your statement is incorrect. On the one hand, no author of free software loses his intellectual property rights, unless he expressly wishes to place his work in the public domain. The free software movement has always been very respectful of intellectual property, and has generated widespread public recognition of authors. Names like those of Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds, Guido van Rossum, Larry Wall, Miguel de Icaza, Andrew Tridgell, Theo de Raadt, Andrea Arcangeli, Bruce Perens, Darren Reed, Alan Cox, Eric Raymond, and many others, are recognized world-wide for their contributions to the development of software that is used today by millions of people throughout the world. On the other hand, to say that the rewards for authors rights make up the main source of payment of Peruvian programmers is in any case a guess, in particular since there is no proof to this effect, nor a demonstration of how the use of free software by the State would influence these payments.
You go on to say that: "11. Open source software, since it can be distributed without charge, does not allow the generation of income for its developers through exports. In this way, the multiplier effect of the sale of software to other countries is weakened, and so in turn is the growth of the industry, while Government rules ought on the contrary to stimulate local industry."
This statement shows once again complete ignorance of the mechanisms of and market for free software. It tries to claim that the market of sale of non- exclusive rights for use (sale of licences) is the only possible one for the software industry, when you yourself pointed out several paragraphs above that it is not even the most important one. The incentives that the bill offers for the growth of a supply of better qualified professionals, together with the increase in experience that working on a large scale with free software within the State will bring for Peruvian technicians, will place them in a highly competitive position to offer their services abroad.
You then state that: "12. In the Forum, the use of open source software in education was discussed, without mentioning the complete collapse of this initiative in a country like Mexico, where precisely the State employees who founded the project now state that open source software did not make it possible to offer a learning experience to pupils in the schools, did not take into account the capability at a national level to give adequate support to the platform, and that the software did not and does not allow for the levels of platform integration that now exist in schools."
In fact Mexico has gone into reverse with the Red Escolar (Schools Network) project. This is due precisely to the fact that the driving forces behind the mexican project used license costs as their main argument, instead of the other reasons specified in our project, which are far more essential. Because of this conceptual mistake, and as a result of the lack of effective support from the SEP (Secretary of State for Public Education), the assumption was made that to implant free software in schools it would be enough to drop their software budget and send them a CD ROM with Gnu/Linux instead. Of course this failed, and it couldn't have been otherwise, just as school laboratories fail when they use proprietary software and have no budget for implementation and maintenance. That's exactly why our bill is not limited to making the use of free software mandatory, but recognizes the need to create a viable migration plan, in which the State undertakes the technical transition in an orderly way in order to then enjoy the advantages of free software.
You end with a rhetorical question: "13. If open source software satisfies all the requirements of State bodies, why do you need a law to adopt it? Shouldn't it be the market which decides freely which products give most benefits or value?"
We agree that in the private sector of the economy, it must be the market that decides which products to use, and no state interference is permissible there. However, in the case of the public sector, the reasoning is not the same: as we have already established, the state archives, handles, and transmits information which does not belong to it, but which is entrusted to it by citizens, who have no alternative under the rule of law. As a counterpart to this legal requirement, the State must take extreme measures to safeguard the integrity, confidentiality, and accessibility of this information. The use of proprietary software raises serious doubts as to whehter these requirements can be fulfilled, lacks conclusive evidence in this respect, and so is not suitable for use in the public sector.
The need for a law is based, firstly, on the realization of the fundamental principles listed above in the specific area of software; secondly, on the fact that the State is not an ideal homogoneous entity, but made up of multiple bodies with varying degrees of autonomy in decision making. Given that it is inappropriate to use proprietary software, the fact of establishing these rules in law will prevent the personal discretion of any state employee from putting at risk the information which belongs to citizens. And above all, because it constitutes an up-to-date reaffirmation in relation to the means of management and communication of information used today, it is based on the republican principle of openness to the public.
In conformance with this universally accepted principle, the citizen has the right to know all information held by the State and not covered by well- founded declarations of secrecy based on law. Now, software deals with information and is itself information. Information in a special form, capable of being interpreted by a machine in order to execute actions, but crucial information all the same because the citizen has a legitimate right to know, for example, how his vote is computed or his taxes calculated. And for that he must have free access to the source code and be able to prove to his satisfaction the programs used for electoral computations or calculation of his taxes.
I wish you the greatest respect, and would like to repeat that my office will always be open for you to expound your point of view to whatever level of detail you consider suitable.
Cordially,
DR. EDGAR DAVID VILLANUEVA NUÑEZ
Congressman of the Republica of Perú.
-- thinkyhead software and media
Get any software you please from any vendor you please for your desktop workstations. If your computer isn't up to running it, we'll get you an upgrade, and don't worry about downtime, if you can't work while you're waiting, take some time off on us. If it won't talk to the other applications on our network, don't worry about it, it's our problem. Take some more time off on us while we fix it.
When a public policy position is this easily reduced to transparent (but not "Trustworthy") absurdity, it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.
Any organization has the right to mandate the use of software matching certain specifications to ensure interoperability and a common environment so that any employee will be able to function on any workstation she is assigned to for at least basic applications like mail, office apps, etc. It just happens that in a government, such regulations and laws have the force of law because it is the government. Further, it also has the responsibility to both itself and to its customers to keep information it collects secure. It can best meet this responsibility by mandating the use of securable software. Microsoft doesn't make any.
Moreover, a government is in a special position with respect to legacy software and formats. Unlike most businesses, documents created 25 or 50 years ago must be accessible not only to government employees, but to the general public as well. When looking up a legal precedent and why it was made, one frequently has to go back 25 or 50 or even sometimes, 100+ years to look up what the courts and the legislators had to say about it. Does anyone think MS will be around in 100 years?
Government also has special requirements regarding security, it has many databases full of software it must maintain in order to function which are an attractive target for h4xx0rs. The CA state employee database which got hacked a few months ago. Allowing state agencies to pick insecure MS products in the name of "freedom of choice" is just not acceptable.
Finally, one other point that should have been obvious to Tim. The Open Source Movement has gotten big enough that it either must get political or get crushed. MS lobbying killed the NSA Secure Linux project despite the fact that MS makes no secure products of its own. What's going on with respect to laws being made by politicians 0wn3d by Hollywood that will destructively impact the Open Source Community is known to all of us with the remotest clue. Until I read what Tim said, I would have put him in that category.
We can no longer afford to follow our previous traditions of ignoring politics or pretending to be a political player via geektivism, which as Declan has said, must ultimately fail. Politicians listen to our presentations politely and with blank incomprehension, our people get the feeling of having made a difference, then they go back to their offices and talk to the lobbyists who speak to them in a language they do under$tand.
We either have to learn to play with the big boys... to compete in the political arena with Microsoft and Hollywood as equals or find ourselves locked out of the software market and ultimately, locked out of the ability to use our own computers in any manner not preapproved by MS and Hollywood.
While I support the Digital Software Security Act and will tell my CA state legislators to vote YES, the Open Source Community is going to get our collective asses kicked over this one unless it is willing to organize a PAC for the purpose of collecting our money to redistribute to politicians...
If you want access to politicians, you've got to pay for it just like everyone else who gets it does. That's a lesson we must learn NOW for our own survival.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Not so at all. Red Hat is a Software company. They have created a lot of software that is OSS.
Guess who created Red Had Package Manager for instance.
Yes they are also a marketing company and a good portion of their revenue comes from selling CD's with a bunch of free software.
Tim O'Reilly is a truely balancing force in the _computer_ world. Who else would have been able to get heads of MS and open source together on a stage and keep a fight from breaking out. He has contributed countless advances to _computer_ technology, and it is his level headedness and fairness that makes his opinion still respected and not discounted as some crazed lunatic as Stallman's points are offten seen.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
that the government doesn't already have the source to NT/etc.
What makes you think they don't? MS has licensed source for years.
You keep assuming that specifics of the audit process need be in the code. Why can't the specifics all be general values, which are supplied by a configuration file?
Or just have the program interpret a script in a file, and then act on it.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
I disagree with Mr. O'Reilly on this one for two reasons.
First, having worked for the government for three years before, the people in most government agencies who take bids and order items like computers and software don't know the difference between a 5 1/4" floppy disk and a 3 1/2" floppy disk, let alone know what Linux or BSD are. Where I worked, they consistantly ordered the 5 1/4" drives because, "they hold more data."
For this reason, I think OSS needs to be pushed in the government agencies. I'm not saying that they must be forced to use OSS, but rather OSS price gathering must be required during the bidding process.
It behooves the government to find the lowest cost on quality purchases, which is why they have the bidding processes in place. To deny a local vendor the chance to bid on a government contract is against the rules of the bidding process (at least in the departments where I worked it was). The agency must remain fair to all entities during the bidding process. Currently, operating systems like Linux and *BSD are overlooked in the bidding process. This should not be the case since there are many providers who probably would like to bid on such contracts. To my knowledge, they aren't even notified concerning upcoming bids. I think the bidding process should require the gathering and accepting of OSS bids along with Windows bids and the most cost effective solution should be the one that wins the bid.
My second reason is more a political one, and therefore perhaps not as important, but I believe if the government was not reliant on any particular vendor (Microsoft) for the majority of its operating system needs, then that particular vendor would not have as much power or influence in the government. I consider this a good thing.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It may be a lousy idea, but it's not a lousy idea because it is a restriction on the government.
I think the DSSA's biggest flaw is its absolute prohibition on non-Free software. Even the FOIA has limitations (which are all too often abused, but that's another story).
I did not say that either. You had said it was wrong to be "forcing technical decisions to be made in support of an ideology".If making decisions based on this ideology is wrong, than you are implying that other decisions made on the same ideology are wrong.
Again, it may be a lousy idea, but it's not a lousy idea because it's wrong to want an transparent government.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Then perhap the problem is in the IRS' inadequate auditing processes.
If disclosure of the process would result in people scamming the IRS, then it can't be that great, which I had a hint of anyways. The IRS doesn't audit famous people like Jesse Jackson, who's certainly deserving of an audit. B/c they're afraid. And because its easier and cheaper to squeeze money out of a middle class person, whether they filled out their forms right or not. Regarding the IRS, people unconstitutionally lose their presumption of innocence: the IRS presumes you guilty until you can prove otherwise, and you lose money because of it.
Also, and I was thinking this before, don't you think we have the right to know what criteria the IRS uses for auditing people? I.e., I wouldn't be surprised if criteria like the following exists:
ONLY audit the weak and defenseless.
Leave the powerful like Jesse Jackson alone, because that's too much trouble and bad press, and we're afraid to be labeled racists.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Might I point out that we're discussing the way in which the story we're discussing was presented, and how the method of presentation effects the overall point of the thread. I daresay this isn't offtopic by any stretch of the imagination, especially since the actual *topic* is somewhat up to debate.
Of course, I also find it weird that a swarm of moderators would come on and all decide to systematically mod all of the posts "Offtopic" in the twenty minutes since I last checked out this thread, but I've never been one for conspiricy theories.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
This doesn't imply that the software needs to be free in the FSF sense, but it implies that the code can be examined by any interested party. It doesn't mean that you should be allowed to modify it, though it is certainly an advantage to society.
It is this right that makes free software so important in public policy. It doesn't matter if a tool is better from a strict cost-benifit viewpoint, if it violates my right to know what goes on with the data I give to the government about me. I need to know for sure that MS doesn't have a backdoor that pass it off to their marketing department, or to any other entity I wouldn't want it to be passed to. If I can't be sure about this, then the tool has no place in public office.
So, I disagree with Tim on this, I think the simple "right tool for the job"-mindset is too short-sighted, but I think Michael's response was childish, and that he owes Tim an apology.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
Quote from the article:
Does the law actually say: "companies that do not place restrictions on use or access to source code"? If so that would be unfair, and the law should be changed. We should allow any company to participate. But if the law would say "all software used by the government should meet these requirements...." that would be fine.
The government has every right to specify software licenses. A software license isn't some irrelevant piece of paper. It's integral to, and inseperable from the software. Since many licenses restrict "use" of the software, they presumably kick in as soon as the software is loaded. So, if the government is allowed to specify the behavior of the software, they should also be able to specify limitations on the license.
All of the problems that might crop up with using closed-source software can quickly and predictably be solved by mandating that the source code be publically available. (Vendor lock-in, unauditable software behavior, privacy, security, etc). This doesn't mean "Linux" or "GPL" (though those already meet the requirements). The government doesn't have specify a particular license, just that the software has to be available in source code form and can be freely copied and used by the public. Any company can submit, even Microsoft. They can charge whatever they think is a fair price for the software and for the support.
Another quote:
Interesting way to put it.. it's also similarly "criminal" for an official to buy Tetris as the department's accounting software. Or to hire a pastry chef to do important accounting.
The government has one overreaching responsibility: to serve the public. If a piece of software doesn't allow the public that paid for it to inspect it and use it, it doesn't meet the government's needs. By focusing only on the technical aspects of the software, and treating licenses as interchangeable pieces of paper, you make a big mistake. Some licenses serve the public interest better than others. That's why there's an Open Source movement to begin with.
This statement doesn't make any sense. Companies lobby and fight for their benefit all the time. And how about commercial open-source software developers, won't they lobby on the other side?
Now now, you're being unfair to companies that have secretive license policies and proprietary file formats! We should allow companies their choice of secrets so we can "level the playing field". Use the best technology for the job I say, don't worry about the strings attached.
If the government can mandate open file formats and open licensing, they can do the same for source code, which will create the same kinds of benefits.
Mandating open source software would be "a legislative agenda of increasing openness". There would be less secrets in government computing procedures that affect the public, and there would be less secrecy in licenses, and there'd be less problems with interoperability and vendor lock-in. Sounds like a good deal.
Now honestly, sitting here today, I'm not too worried about whether tax forms are prepared on a Windows machine or a Linux machine inside the IRS and stuff like that. But computers are important parts of our lives, and the power computers hold over us is growing every day. If the government uses codes that affect aspects of our lives, and pays with our tax dollars for those codes, we have the right to know how they work and no single company should have the right to any part of it. There's simply too much risk for abuse.
I find it unbelievable that so many here say it's "morally wrong" for the government to specify licenses. Some licenses are more closely aligned with the democratic process (just like some economic systems are more aligned with the democratic process). The government should, whenever possible, choose those licenses.
O'Reilly makes a *very* important point about forcing governments to use Open Source software: it's morally reprehensible.
Feh. All the time companies make rules about how IT will be implemented. Why should the government be any different?
At a company I used to work for, there was a corporate mandate handed down that all laser printers needed to come from HP. They also mandated MS Exchange for e-mail accounts, which I thought was a bad idea. They also mandated a whole bunch of other things, like security standards. Stuff like every corporate laptop should have an encrypted harddrive, so that if it was stolen, the files couldn't be (easily) read from it. I thought that was a very good idea.
So how is a memo from the CIO's office in a private company any different that a law passed by the state legislature in a government agency? How is that morally reprehensible, huh?
It would be morally reprehensible if they passed a law that said everyone had to use OSS. But that's not even being suggested here.
I'm a CIO now (though of a small company). There is no 'right to choose' for everyone in the company as far as IT decisions go. I decide. If there's something you need that can't be done with the existing infrastructure, fine, we'll discuss it and come up with a solution. But there will always be times when someone says 'I want to use X', and I'll reply 'make it work with Y instead', because that's what fits in with my company's IT policies.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I should clarify. When I say Monopoly, I'm referring to any company that has been rules to be such in a court of law. Which is basically just Microsoft.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Ok, you start making real and debatable points, but end with:
> Put differently: is it still `free' software if you're forced to use it?
Is it "free" software if Stallman "forces" himself to use it? It's this idea that the government can be "forced" to do something that I was arguing with in the first case. The government is not "forced" to use it because the government is the People, and if the People choose to do something (even if it's stupid), they aren't "forcing" themselves.
The FOIA laws have costs as well. Someone has to spend time answering those requests, and they can be very time consuming. But, for purely ideological reasons, the People decided that the government needs to be accountable and FOIA laws were passed.
Similarly, various states "force" themselves to use Union labor, even though it will inherently cost more. Nevertheless, the People decided that it was in their collective best interest to spend more money to build some bridges. The government was not "forced" to do so, it chose to do so.
If the DSSA is passed, California is not "forced" to use Free Software, they've chosen to.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Jesus Michael. Why don't you post a comment and participate in the discussion like the rest of us rather than abusing your privilege of story posting as a vehicle for personal rants. This is a perfect example of why I'm still not a subscriber to Slashdot.
Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
I think michael would have done well to heed the old saying: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." Essentially, michael is seeing Tim's words, and assuming that he has a nefarious ulterior motive. I think that the simpler answer is better (yay, Occam): O'Reilly failed to consider the necessity of transparency in government effort. (No, I don't think he's "stupid", but it's an apt quote.)
Many posts here keep mentioning that the government should choose its software based on whether it's "the best tool for the job". I agree. The problem is in the definition of "best tool for the job". Most of the anti-michael posts seem to think that "best tool" only includes one, or maybe two factors: the technical superiority of the software, and possibly its monetary cost.
There is a third factor, equally (possibly more) important in my view: The government's responsibility to make its work transparent to its citizens.
The government does not have any "right to choose" what software it uses on its own initiative. The government's entire existence is contingent upon the will of the people -- essentially, the government is a company whose board of directors is the American public. Its employees (individual government workers) are beholden to the company's policies -- they must use what tools it specifies, just like any employee at any company.
If the public decides that it wants more transparency in government work, then that is the public's will and the government's duty. If the public decides that one good way to get this transparency is to require open source software, then so be it. As a member of that Board of Directors, I get a vote in whether that happens -- although due to the rather byzantine legal processes of the land, it's only an indirect vote with a massive lag-time. Nonetheless, the government exists to serve its public, and must act according to its public's will.
I think O'Reilly has confused the rights of an individual and the rights of government. Namely, that the government has no inherent rights, except those granted to it by the people. His final comments begin to sound as if the government is being oppressed by such decisions, instead of enjoying the liberty that all humankind deserves.
The problem being, of course, that the government is not a person, and does not "deserve" anything. Saying that "no one should be forced to choose open source" in defense of a nonexistant government right is errant -- in other words, he is saying that we should not force the government to use particular tools.
Now, the idea that EVERY government software solution should ALWAYS be open source is not necessarily a good idea (it may be, it may not be, I don't know) -- but claiming that it is morally wrong because the government has a right to choose what it wants, is ludicrous. The government exists to serve the people -- it has no rights except those we grant it.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
This is actually a problem for commercial, private sector entities as well. The "problem" is not software licensing, though the ever increasing cost of such licenses should be a factor. The long term problem is data file storage format.
/06 files though it wouldn't write them. We all had to upgrade when our annual 06 lease expired anyway. Not a big deal - Microsoft licence fees have been a separate corperate budget line item for a few years now.
Consider the current trend toward shorter, more restrictive, time-limited software licensing. also consider the deliberate limited backward compatibility designed to "encourage" upgrades. Consider the backup and archive files we all burn onto CDs every day.
In the not-too-distant future, we will need to access some old file from July of 2003 created with Microsoft Word XP/03. We will all be using Microsoft Word XP/07 by then. Microsoft WordXP/07 was able to read all of the
How do we access that old file from 2003? The curent version of Microsoft Word doesn't include backward compatibility from that long ago... The old XP/03 disks won't install anymore because the license to use it has expired... Attempting to circumvent the XP/03 DRM'ed DMCA'ed installer would be a crime... How do we access those old files? The secret proprietary file format includes DRM facilities to be sure that no one can copy my files. The DRM mechanism itself is secret and prorietary and any attempt to circumvent it would be DMCA violation. Attempting to decrypt the file itself would also violate the DMCA.
Without standard, documented, accessable data file storage formats, it will soon be illegal to access our own archived files. Another entire I.T. department will be required to migrate archives from "old" formats to "current" formats before the license to use the old software expires.
Open source software might not save the world, but the data files it generates will never ever be locked away in a secret proprietary encrypted, DRM'ed DMCA'ed file.
Actually, I don't see a problem with the government buying something where the default format cannot be proprietary.
There is nothing wrong with selling 2 versions of the software, one for the private sector with proprietary formats default, and one for the public sector with open formats default. You *can* legislate (or executive order or FIPS) that the government (and government contractors) must use the government (open format default) version.
You see this in computer hardware sales already... Dell/Gateway have categories for their models. Home, Corporate, and Government. Doing the same for software is not at all a stretch. As far as that goes, Microsoft does it already. Windows XP Home and Windows XP Professional.
Now, this doesn't mean that the government will actually pay attention to its own rules... The DoD had rules about "all software will be written in Ada" for quite a while... and the most common piece of paperwork for any system was the "Ada Waiver".
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
...does Tim O'Reilly ever change that beige shirt?
Breakfast served all day!
Those are the privacy of the citizens. I'm referring to the government body itself.
... but not to all people. Some folks believe that open sourced code should be the only code out there.
Make it open, and well defined, file formats, and I will accept it as a reasonable choice. (Drop the well defined, and I won't.)
I happen to believe that the public would benefit if the government switched to exclusively GPL software (with special exemptions needing personal signature by the head of the department, and him being legally liable for the truth of the justifications). This doesn't mean that I would insist on it (were I in a position to do any insisting). I would, however, demand that the file formats be open, well documented, and patent©right-free (i.e., if there were any patents that might impact the file standard, the owners would grant free use on any descendant software/file format provided it adhered to the GPL standards (Note that the owners of the patents would themselves be allowed to be as proprietary as they liked about their own work in any other context).
This doesn't mean that there would be a requirement to publish the file formats. In fact, did they choose to, the customers could require of the vendor exclusive rights to the file formats, and then never distribute them).
Basically, a file format is like any other software, but the operative verb is use rather than execute. So just use a slightly modified version of the GPL (doesn't O'Reilly have a proposal on its site?)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
And as for taking away "their" freedom, since when did the government ever become "theirs"? I thought it was our government. You know, "of the people, for the people, and by the people" and all that stuff. Limiting what our government can do is a very very good thing, a case in point being the bill of rights. Over time, the government tends to accumulate more and more power to itself, until you end up with a situation like today. Limiting the government at their software uses might be a relatively small thing, but it's a very important act in the philosophy of the US, which is supposed to place the power in the hands of the people rather than the government.
Tim's freedom to choose your own license still extends to every individual and corporation. Companies can still run whatever they want. But the government is yours and mine, and we have the power to mandate what goes on its desks. There is no mystical "they" deciding that closed software is all right. It's us. Make your decision, I've made mine.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
Exactly.
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
Tim O'Reilly decries the "politicization" and
"radicalization" of the open source community.
It seems to be a libertarian axiom that freedom
and politics don't mix. I don't agree.
When a person refuses to engage in politics, all
he does is ensure that his voice is not heard in
the halls of power. The government is our
government as much as it is anyone else's, and
there is no reason why we should not strive to
have our values recognized and our concerns
addressed.
Some people have questioned the technical wisdom
of the California bill. They may have a point,
but it is orthogonal to my point.
Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
Open Source does infact put food on the table. It just puts food on EVERYONE's table instead of just the Robber Baron's table. If one corporation can stand cooperating others, they can contribute to the development of publically owned products that will benefit everyone and eliminate an expenditure.
"putting food on the table" was never the point of Free Software. Free Software is meant to create tools that everyone can cheaply use, even to make money with.
Most commercial software simply isn't interesting enough to rate copyright protection.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Should governments spend tax dollars to buy closed, proprietary applications that lock the people's data into tightly protected formats?
You're presupposing that all closed-source apps have a closed data format. You and I both know that that's simply not true.
What *should* be mandated is that all information that is accessible to the public is in a data format that is open. We as the public really don't care how the government gets it there.
At first glance, I didn't agree with the analogy. What does racial preference and software preference have in common? Well, then I thought about it. The idea of Affirmative Action seems horrible (giving racial preference), but when you look at what its supposed to do its not so bad. Affirmative Action is a government program that tries to balance the scales. Before you start to think government has no business doing that, please don't forget that governemnt was fine with slavery. I don't think we need a refresher on slavery and the subsequent effects on equality.
So how is there a similarity between Affirmative Action and Gov't preference for OSS/FS? The government currently _has_ Windows/Lotus/"Jo Proprietary Co's app" mandates; I should know, as I work in the public sector where its all NT4/2K and not a Gnu in sight. Mandating MS products has certainly given Microsoft(and others) an edge over the competition. This "let there be competition" argument is nice, but there is no competition if the government helped misalign the field. Promoting OSS/FS would, like AA, would help fix the playing field that Joe Gov't helped mess up.
Aside from the ethical reason to go OSS/FS, I would have to agree with previous posters that I want to know *everything* my tax dollars go to. Now that I work for the gov't I feel that more strongly than ever.
No but it does show as a developer you can get paid to work on open source software.
Hey, Pets.com showed you can get paid to sell dogfood on the Internet, at least for a few months. You can make money playing the lottery too, but it doesn't mean it's a good business model. For some reason, OSS-advocates like you always try to use a qualitative argument where a quantitative argument was called for. No one doubts that it is possible to make money with open source. That is silly. The question is, how much money, with how much risk, and how many developers' salaries can it support.
RedHat is one of the few OSS companies that is actually making money above the line (however, they are still losing money below the line and they have never even had a single profitable quarter). RedHat employs a mere 600 people (only a handful of which are coders), whereas Microsoft employs tens of thousands. Which of these is more likely to pay you to code? I would even venture a guess that Microsoft has funded more OSS projects (indirectly, via employees contributing in their spare time) than RedHat has even dreamed of.
Redhat has a good buisness model,
You know, I'm a fan of counter-intuitive ideas. They are somewhat of a hobby of mine. But I believe that ideas that go against the grain require extraordinary evidence to back them up, and you have *zero* evidence to back up that last statement. Here's a hint: successful counter-intuitive ideas are not founded on the principle of "wishing will make it so." Congratulations, RedHat. If you succeed, you will have taken a $40 billion industry and reduced it to a $100 million industry.
-a
How to rationalize theft.
Been there, done that, T-Shirt's on back-order.
/is/ theoretically possible to run a computer with an old OS.
:)
I admin a heterogenus LAN over two site of about 200 comptuers each, we run a smattering of 9x/NT/2K/XP, the only reason We run the non-NT systems is becuase they are OEM and I don't want to be bothered by formatting a perfectly good install. NTFS in the NT4 installer can handle drives up to 2G in size, which IMHO is a good thing, because it allows you to toss all your data on another drive and if NT shits the bed, you can reform C: and not worry about D:.
The Service Pack is a problem, but anything above IE3 handles MSFT's site marginally (NT4 comes with IE2 by default) so it
Yes, you will face this problem, but there are always ways around it, I have a friend still running Linux 1.X. Its all relative.
Objects in the blog are closer then they ap
A law that applies to YOU is significantly different than a law that applies to the government. There is no Freedom of Information law that applies to you as a private individual. It would be awful. That doesn't mean that such a law that applies to the government is wrong.
It is no different than passing a law that requires the government to use Union labor. It will certainly cost more, but the People decided that, morally, it is the "right" thing to do.
If the People of California decide that, collectively, they believe in the moral advantages of Open Source, that they believe that it will make government functions more open to scrutiny (unlike the Florida County who agreed to use proprietary ballot machines that can not be accounted for beyond the word of the company), and if the People decide that government spending on Open Source will be better for the entire industry (as it will stop subsidizing monopolists and encourage development of Open Software), then they have every right to do so.
The Federal Government has new software standards (Section 508). They have imposed a burden that all new software must meet various accessability requirements. Only if there are NO alternatives can they use any other software. If one product costs $10 million dollars and the other is superior in every way including price, Section 508 requires the Government to choose the one that meets the standards.
One of the major arguments in support of this law is that it will spur all software developers to make their software accessible, and will thus spur investment in an otherwise small but useful market.
The DSSA is no different, morally, than Section 508. The Federal Government has to reject superior products for some purpose simply because they happen not to have a single feature.
PS: I don't live in California and I don't believe their version is a good well thought. I also have problems with Section 508.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
With /. numbers we should be able to lobby more then M$.
/. to agree on any one thing. You need to all be for the same cause to lobby.
Yeah, just TRY and get more than 2 people on
This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
Ah the joys of competing against a monopolist. ... If this were a simple matter of competing in an open market we would not be having this conversation.
Oh, nonsense. It's pretty pathetic to hear proponents of free software claiming that the competition, costing hundreds or thousands of dollars per unit, has an "unfair" advantage.
True, MS was able to starve Netscape of revenues by shipping a free knockoff of Netscape's commercial product, but it's Linux with the power to do this to MS, not the other way around.
If Linux can't unseat Windows as the most popular general purpose client OS despite being absolutely free, there might be something wrong beyond just an unfair MS monopoly.
Fortunately, the game's not over. Great projects like Mono and others that provide useful technology rather than political rhetoric may one day make Linux a superior choice for the average Joe. Not yet, though.
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
The only difference between 508 and the DSSA are that the DSSA defines a superior product as one that includes the source code. Section 508 offers no balance either. The software MUST have it. If it is harder to use, if it crashes, if it is infinitely more expensive, and if it offers no additional features, 508-compliant software will win.
You make some distinction between technical merits and ideology. Section 508 is clearly an ideological one. The ideology in their case is that it is better to have more software with accessabiliy requirements, even though those features may not be used by anyone. By only using 508-compliant software, the producers of such software are compelled to make such features. Those features, although not necessarily used by the government, are now more widely available to the general public.
Section 508 clearly assumes that software with accessability cannot compete on purely technical merits either. Governments often use their buying power to support ideological causes.
The case against MS also is a case that Open Source (or anything else, for that matter) cannot compete against MS because they are a monopoly.
It would be nice if all software was chosen on its merits. California has proven that it is incapable of making such choices via the Oracle debacle. Rather than buying the right product at the right price, they bought the software from a company that contributed to political campaigns. Do you believe that they even evaluated PostgreSQL?
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
It seems to me you are upset with the labeling of minorities. Certainly I would have to agree that is pretty hard to swallow. Unfortunately, AA will not work unless you can describe someone as a minority-hence the awful checkboxes.
Look, AA is pretty hosed. Your not going to get an argument about that from me. What else is hosed? Slavery, Dredd Scott, Plessy vs Fergason, women not being able to vote, etc... These are things the gov't did to screw people. AA, is a way to help undo that.
All of this "personal merit" talk is easy if you were never discriminated against.
Section 508 applies to the Federal government and does not require access to the source code. It merely requires that the software be accessible to people with disabilities (e.g. must be usable with screen-reading software and be useable without a mouse).
... the idea of the state ...
You are free to decide that there moral advantage of this law does not outweigh its costs. You may also decide that the moral advantage of Union labor does not outweigh its costs and vote against legislation that requires the government to use it. This is how a Government makes its decisions. It is not "forced".
> Just as it is not allowed for a private company
They are NOT the same. That was my only reason for starting this thread in the first case.
It is a good idea that the Government pass zoning laws, which restrict the activities of private companies and individuals. It is not a good idea for an individual or company to do the same.
If you think it's wrong for the Government to help one competitor compete, then you must be opposed to section 508. In fact, whatever software the Government chooses to use will give that software an "artificial leg-up". Not only is the government the largest purchaser, they also compell citizens and businesses to interact with them. Given this, all citizens have a legitimate interest in what the government chooses.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!