Slashdot Mirror
Brazil Mandates Shift to Free Software
truthsearch writes "LinuxToday is reporting news and a response about Brazil making Open Source mandatory for 80% of all computers in state institutions and businesses, setting up a 'Chamber for the Implementation of Software Libre.'" This is a big win for Linux, but is making it mandatory going too far? It would seem wiser to support a solution that favors the best tool for the job, which may not always be an open source product.
Your luggage is ready, sir.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Brazil's not exactly overflowing with cash at the moment. A tool that does 90% of the job for free is better than a tool that does 100% of the job but that you can't afford to purchase.
This is a big win for Linux, but is making it mandatory going too far? It would seem wiser to support a solution that favors the best tool for the job, which may not always be an open source product.
I think an 80% mandation (is that even a word?) seems fair. You leave 20% left over for missions-critical applications (military and whatnot; remember, Brazil isn't like the US - they don't spend hundreds of billions on military, and therefore, I doubt their military computer systems make up even 10% of their infrastructure), on which you can chose software based on the best choice out there. But the remaining 80%, which represents mostly desktop applications for clerks and whatnot, will be running on OSS - this is good, because it prevents government from getting locked into restrictive licencing that usually comes with desktop production software, saves money, and encurages development of open software/standards.
I think they've met a good balance here, and I congradulate them.
--
http://nemilar.net - Not your grandmother's soup kitchen
It brings skills into the country and stops the export of programming jobs. It ensures that the organisatons you want to account are local. It means that all of your population can take advantage of gov't programming and development work. It reduces dependancies on countries which may or may not change their mind about you in the future. It means you aren't bound to proprietary standards (docs and APIs) which might be used to keep you on that platform. It means that the code can never be taken away from you.
Given that a countries primary mandate is social, it makes a great deal of sense to mandate free software, for the good of the country, unless you happen to be the country that is the home of Microsoft (and even then that's debatable - MS is perfectly happy to outsource programming jobs to wherever is cheapest).
Beep beep.
Erm.. you're wrong. The point is that that "choice" you speak of was made. This is all about Brazil's goverment - they can decide for themselves if they want everything OS or not, and they did, which is just as much a choice as chosing to buy Windoze computers/software. As long as they don't make it mandatory for Brazil's inhabitants to use OSS, they're only chosing what software they themselves want to use - you can't be against that, can you?
'Chamber for the Implementation of Software Libre.'" Libre = Spanish Livre = Portuguese Portuguese, not spanish, is the spoken language in Brazil...
...is a tool that guarantees you it can still be used in 20 years. Only Open Source Software can assure you that. The manufacturers of Closed Source Software will eventually stop support, go backrupt or be bought by a large company that just kills it. There is absolutely no excuse to use closed source software. And "It's easier to use on the short term" is NOT an excuse if you cannot be 100% certain that your data will still be readable in 10 years.
0x or or snor perron?!
but is making it mandatory going too far?
In the transition to a fully open source office, the initial training expense is high (not because Windows is easier, but because everyone already knows how to use it). After the initial expense, and assuming a large installed base (to facilitate peer support), the cost savings are enormous. Government offices are the perfect places to take advantage of these facts - no quarterly stockholder reports to worry about means the initial expense won't affect anyone's bonus, and the massive user base makes peer support extremely cost effective.
Wholly aside from the cost efficiency aspect is the open government and independence issue. As things stand, Brazil is dependent on Microsoft, and runs on software to which Brazil's citizens have no access. This is hardly an appropriate position for democracy to find itself in.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Well, AFAICT, choosing between non-free software programs is only a matter of choosing who your owner is going to be.
With Free (Livre) Software a governmant will have true soverneity over what it's computers do (well, that may need some support --> business model here?).
If it doesn't like the way some things are being done, it can always be done by others. With non-free software, all who can really do anything at all are the owneres, so they get to "tell to" the government what it can (or can't) do with its computers.
I'm sorry, but this _is_ a choice a government can do that is somewhat important. It will get to choose who can give it support. It'll get it control over what the software is doing, and talking about plenty software choices, well... the FUD some idiots spread around is that there's too much Free Software programs for you to choose... so there you go. You can choose the best Free tool for the job. Freedom is what the government is mandating for itself by choosing to use only Free Software. Why are you against it? Do you rather your government can't tell you wether some software company has secret access to your records?
It does not. Open Source Software doesn't stand for choice. It stands for certain guarantees. In even forces those guarantees onto you. Guarantees like "you can be 100% sure about what this software does" and "you can be 100% sure in 100 years the data written by this software can still be read". So mandatory use of free software forces certain guarantees. IMHO those guarantees - especially in a government - are plain simply required. It's absolutely not acceptable to buy software that doesn't offer you those guarantees so closed source software just isn't an option.
0x or or snor perron?!
Just a reminder of what just happened in Munich, Germany: while trying to convince public administration to choose Windows, Microsoft dramatically reduced its prices. So, if you're a big company or a public entity, the sole announcement that you consider the Linux alternative can save you a couple of million dollars. Not considering OSS alternatives will cost you or your taxpayers millions of dollars.
That's why competition is so good.
Unfortunately, the market isn't that "free" either. With powerful trans-national corporations being the only "real" players in the so-called "free market", it would be next to impossible for the Brazilian government to open up the competition.
Freedom != Market Deregulation
Sometimes governments mandate something to break the 'inertia' mentioned in the article. I expect the move to OS would be at a snail's pace as change can be difficult in a large bureaucracy where the pressure is on to keep the status quo. There are times when the government's job is to mandate something to force change on a reluctant group. Think civil rights or enviornmental issues. Especially when millions of dollars and persuasive lobbists are involved.
There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come.
In any case, this doesn't prevent anyone at all from selling their software in Brazil. It merely says that if you want to sell to government agencies, you must also supply the source. Without any silly NDA.
And it's really no different than, say, if you want to sell vehicles to a government agency. It's routine for such buyers to insist on full shop manuals with every sale, so that the guys in their fleet shop can maintain them. Hardly any government agency anywhere takes their cars to the dealer for maintenance. (Well, actually, some do, but usually only if the dealer gives them a deal comparable with doing it themselves.)
How is it that software vendors think they can get away with keeping the inner workings of their products secret, when this is hardly done with any other products except for cheap disposables?
So, bravo for the Brazilian government. They're finally wising up. No government with a grain of sense would buy software whose inner workings are unknowable and unfixable. Especially not from a big foreign-owned company that doesn't have your interests at heart. And that's what we're really talking about here.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
OSS is in stark opposition to the notion of ownership of property.
I take issue with that. No one sane talks about forcing closed source companies to open their source. It isn't a communist dream of wealth redistribution, it's a recognition that software and data have very little economic value by themselves, that once software is written, it becomes an infinite resource that everyone can share.
As a Libertarian and a supporter of free software, I see no fundamental conflict between OSS and property rights, any more than I see a fundamental conflict between grocery stores and charity food banks.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.